 And welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. And we are considering two amendments to S119, which is on a reaction on the calendar today when we go to the floor. And let's see, we have Representative Ann Donahue with us. And I don't know, Ann or Martin, if one of you want to go first or welcome to have. I'm ready any time up to you. What order do you want to take? Okay, all right. Why don't you go? Go ahead. Yeah. So I consider myself a reasonably bright person. And most of you know, I think I am an attorney by training, but it took me probably three hours of email back and forth with legislative counsel last night to figure out from the bill that it actually doesn't do what I feared it was doing based on what seemed to be the plain meaning. So my amendment, I think just really cleans up and communicates more accurately what your bill already intended. Because I think, well, I'll just go straight to the sentence and the line in question, which is C6, it's under the use of deadly force. And C6 is the statement that says a law enforcement officer shall not use a prohibited restraint on a person for any reason. Ann, before you go any further, are you looking at draft 5.1 and what page is that on in the draft? So I am looking at, I was working off the notice calendar. And so I've that page, but then I also wrote down the page on this morning's calendar. So the notice calendar, this is on page 5487. Yeah, I was looking at the bill. But okay, what section of the bill is it now? C, section C is the use of deadly force and this is C6. So yeah, but what section in the bill? There's like seven sections in the bill. Sorry, yes, it's in section, let me just see. Section one. Yeah, section one. So it's on page 5,700 of today's calendar. So I'm page 5,487 of yesterday's calendar. So when I read that in its location under the use of force section, it seems to convey that if an officer is in a situation where they clearly meet the standards for the use of deadly force and the situation we all hope we never see, but we're based on the imminent threat, the death of another person, the officer would be appropriate in using service weapon, shooting, doing any other thing that would be deadly force. And yet if the deadly force that they used was in the definition of a prohibitive restraint, they're still guilty of a felony for using that even though they met the criteria for the use of deadly force. And as I said, when I had lengthy exchanges last night with Brent, if you go through four different components of separate law and kind of assemble them and put them together, it protects against that, but it's really tough to find and see that and removing that statement does not in any way remove the prohibition of using that as a restraint, but it clarifies that it's not intended to say that if you have met the standards for deadly force that that might not end up being the one and only way that a life can be saved. So that's the purpose and what the amendment does is it simply removes that statement. Thank you, Anne. I appreciate it. I see Martin's hand. Martin, before we turn to you, any other committee members, any questions? Okay, Martin, go ahead. Yeah, so I also kind of was in the loop somewhat last night with the representative down to you. And yeah, I agree with where I agree with this amendment. I think that we really over the course of the last couple of weeks and trying to thread the needle, so to speak between making sure that we're being very restrictive on the use of, I'll use shorthand choke holds, but on the other allowing the fact that those might be the best defense that an officer could use in certain situations and wanting to make sure that those situations are covered, that we kind of ended up with something that kind of works, but was pretty contorted, frankly. And really the contortion came out because of that provision C6. Because there we were saying you can't use this for any reason. And yet if you go through these steps which in themselves are fine, you can get there where you can use justifiable homicide defense. So I definitely think that this takes away what I would call the one blemish that I thought that this otherwise very good bill has. And so I really do agree that this is a good amendment. Thank you, Natter. Thank you. So I think I was kind of confused and was just hoping for more clarity. I thought that if a choke hold was used at this point and it was justified because it rose to the level of deadly force, then the officer wouldn't be charged with a felony. Did I miss something? Yeah, I mean, even if the person survives because justifiable homicide covers injury as well. Yeah, I believe that's accurate. Ultimately, but I think in order to understand that you have to go as Martin said, you have to go through a really contorted tracking through the law. Removing it doesn't change the restriction on choke holds but it helps clarify that as you said, an officer would not be liable for using a choke hold if in fact they fully met the standard for the use of deadly force. Okay, thank you. This is something that I would agree with. There were after our last iteration of this bill, a lot of cops were asking me whether they can or can't use a choke holds in that unlikely scenario. And I explained that it was a contorted process but they still could in that event. And I think that making it clear in this circumstance would be helpful so that there aren't officers who are just unclear about what they can or can't do. So I would support this. Thank you. Just looking for other hands. If I'm not seeing people's hands, just jump in please. Folks, another minute or so. Okay, no. Okay, go ahead. Sorry. No, it's okay. Thank you. Go ahead. What page is this on? Are you looking at today's calendar? Okay. Today's calendar, it's on page 5,700. All right, thank you. Yeah. I also, it should also be posted if that's another way. I know it's people read their materials all different ways. And so if the count today's calendar is refreshed, if you refresh it, it is now on the calendar and the amendment itself is on page 5702. But that really won't tell anybody what the amendment does because it just says it deletes C6. So you've got to go back to the 5,700 is where the language that's deleted where six C appears in today's calendar. So if I can just, I need to add a clarification. If anybody did look at the previous calendar, that wasn't just recently refreshed. And if anybody had happened to print it off like I did, there were two errors in the calendar which have now been corrected. Not significant errors, but the effective date was incorrect in the calendar. It said only section one. And now if you look in the calendar, it says section one and section two are not until July 1st. And the justifiable homicide provision 23053 only included compliance with 2368 B2 when it was supposed to say B2, four and five. And that has all been corrected. But I just wanted to flag that in case anybody had been looking at the version before but it has been corrected. The calendar now is correct. You, Tom. Thank you. I have no doubt that this makes the bill a little bit better. But with that said, in my opinion, this is probably the worst bill I've ever seen come through the house of representatives in my 10 years. And I'm certainly not willing to go the route of making not a bad bill. Again, in my eyes, a terrible bill better where it may garner a couple more votes. So I will be voting against this amendment. Understand. Anybody else? Ken. Hi. Thank you. Has Commissioner Schirling or anybody weighed in on this? Anybody, state police or anybody law enforcement? On the amendment? On this amendment, no, it was late last night. It was an issue that the Northfield Police Chief had brought up from the first bill about this huge concern that the new law on making it a felony to use prohibited restraint could place an officer in a situation where it was a life and death struggling with somebody where they would believe they weren't permitted to use it even though deadly force was permitted. So that was part of why it caught my eye because I knew it was a concern of our chief. And this would respond to that concern to make it clear that that's not the intent. But last night, I did not reach out to anybody new. And if I could just add to that, I mean, we've certainly heard about, if not on this particular amendment on this issue, we've heard a lot from a number of people regarding the availability of a defense if a chokehold has to be used in a situation where there's a threat of death or imminent bodily harm. So I'm pretty comfortable that this improves it. It may not go far enough for Commissioner Schirling, but it's certainly an improvement in where we were before. Maxine, you're muted. Great, thank you. All right, thank you. And thank you, Ann, very much. So I'm not seeing any other hands. So I would entertain a motion to consider this amendment. So do you want me to say something before we do it? Or it doesn't really matter. Probably doesn't matter. We'll go to discussion. I guess I really want more people to weigh in this, especially public safety, and they haven't weighed in on it. And I think anybody that I have concerns, I understand where, I believe I understand where Ann is coming from and I appreciate that, but I still have concerns with the officers safety of what's trying to be accomplished here. And this last minute stuff, I'm going to vote no against this, only because the bill I haven't been comfortable with from the beginning, but I'm still open to working on stuff, but right now I'm still a no. Thanks. Great, thank you. Don't worry, Ken, I'll deal with you later. Okay, well, and I just want to let folks know that I just learned that Selena is doing the devotional. So I'm hoping that we can all get to them. Will, and then Selena. Well, I was going to say that, I understand the concern to some degree that there's not a lot of feedback on this amendment. But again, this is something that isn't actually any longer in our committee, we voted it out. This is a bill that is coming before the floor. So if it seems a little last minute, well, it's a floor amendment and that's just sort of the nature of the beast. I voted in favor of this bill when it was in our committee. It certainly looks to me as though this amendment takes a bill that I feel very favorably about and it makes it better. And I'm certainly ready to make a motion to approve the amendment is presented. Okay. Thank you. So I will take that as a motion to have a second. I'll second that. Great, thank you. And Selena, I know your hand was up. We'll move to discussion. Yeah, I was just going to make the same motion. So thanks to representative not. Okay, so discussion, anybody? Okay. So then not are you good to? Yep. Great. Thank you. Yeah. Christy, are we going to leave anything open or are we just going to just move along? We can leave it open for a little bit. Yeah. So Christy Colburn. Yes. Ghostland. Ken. I'll be glad when we get back in there. No. Hashim. Yes. Not. Yes. Rachelson. Yes. Seymour. He's not here, right? Tully. Yes. Lowloan. Yes. Burt it. No. Grad. Yes. Okay. So as of now, I have a seven four. But we will leave it open. But that is, and you're looking at my math incorrect. Yes. I think you have seven four. Seven two. Yeah, seven two two. Thank you. Yeah, right. I'm looking at my, you're right. Okay. But certainly enough that it has been treated friendly, but we will leave it open for coach and Patrick. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay. Who made the motion and the second? Will moved it and Selena seconded it. Thank you. Okay. All right. Martin. So the other amendment, first of all, just to preface this by saying that we've been trying very hard to address the concerns that we've heard from the Senate judiciary along the way. And this amendment this furthers that. So I'll just run through what the amendments are. The first amendment is to really simplifies the totality of the circumstances in two ways. It takes out the or reasonably available. And if everybody recalls from what Brynne was telling us, that's implicit in any event because all of the, all of this, all of these standards as far as use of force and deadly force go through the perspective of a reasonable law enforcement officer. So that reasonableness component of it is really already there. So we don't need it there and it makes the Senate more comfortable it not being there. We also didn't need to have the long list of those various, the medical conditions and such. The key is that we have that and continue to have that in B5, section B5, which really is what establishes the duty for law enforcement to consider whether conduct is a result of these various factors. So that's that particular amendment. The second amendment similarly takes out the or reasonably should know from the section related to law enforcement's obligation to consider whether somebody's conduct as a result of some impairment in taking and deciding what kind of level of force to use. That caused some concern about the uncertainty of having that language there. I don't think that we lose really much and recall that really working with Will DeWyte, the language that was in there, she was in favor of and it did not include the or reasonably should know language. That language was in fact inserted because of what we thought the Senate wanted when they initially looked at this language and apparently we were wrong as far as what the Senate wanted with respect to that language. In any event, this still goes through the perspective of a reasonable law enforcement officer. What would a reasonable law enforcement officer have known that the conduct was a result of these various impairments. So we really are not losing much by even taking that out, frankly. The next... Actually, excuse me, Barbara, do you? I see Barbara's hand, so... Oh, I'm in Selena. Should we let Selena go first? I know she's got to leave. Yeah, and I also wonder if we could... I really would love... Well, I guess we can watch your devotionals on YouTube, right? Yeah. I wish there was... I wish we could... It's really important work. You should definitely... I know, but I wish we could be there to support you. Oh, Grace, please keep doing what you're doing. It's much more important than my devotionals. Go ahead. So, Martin, is it your... Because I do think by sort of carving this out of the totality of the circumstances, I mean, I note that similar language remains in the use of force provisions, but the use of deadly force does point pretty explicitly back to the totality of the circumstances definition, which will no longer contain such explicit language on this. Are you saying that you feel that the language that remains would sort of encompass these principles and is backed by case law in doing so? Yes, on both of those. And recall that the standards for use of force applies also to use of deadly force. So the things that we're setting forth, we are adding additional restrictions on the use of deadly force, but all the standards that are in use of force apply to that equally. So I don't think we lose anything with the deadly force issue. And I do think that this is consistent with the case law that I've been reading. Yes. OK, that is really helpful for me. I went when I first sort of read your amendment. I had a moment of panic and concern that we might be weakening things. But as I look at the whole... I just want to say on record before I have to go as I look at the whole of the bill and what your amendment says, I am feeling a lot more comfortable with this language and my sort of initial quick read of it. So I appreciate that. Yeah, and I appreciate that. And I think we averted a threat from the other body wanting to take that entire provision out by agreeing to this one change, which I think that's a very important provision to have in there. I strongly agree and really appreciate your... Threading the needle on this. Appreciate it a lot. Barbara. Thanks. So Martin, I think my line of questioning is very similar to Selena's, but you had said the whole bill is basically through the perspective of the reasonable law enforcement officer. So I'm wondering and I appreciate that the Senate was not pleased with certain parts, but aside from that, which I'm not saying we should dismiss, I'm just trying to understand, what's the other harm of it appearing or of any of the sections of the three that you mentioned taking out, staying in there? What's the harm of keeping it in? Aside from, I understand one of them might make a difference between the Senate supporting it or not, but in the cases of reasonably available and the long list reappearing, and then your third one was or reasonably should have known. So the Senate bristled at one of those three, is that right? They bristled at the reasonably should know in the reasonably available. Okay. And they also bristled just generally at that provision of B5. Okay, so they basically bristled, okay. Yeah, I think to some extent, I mean, having the reasonably should know in that subsection five does add a little uncertainty or confusion. It's not as clear that this is really tied to the whole concept of the reasonable officer standard. I think it kind of is, but I don't think we lose anything by taking it out of there because we talk about, it's through the reasonable, the lens of a reasonable law enforcement officer to begin with, trying to find that language. Yeah, so I think it's in paragraphs before, use force was objectively reasonable, shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation. So I really think that that captures it. And for some reason it was causing confusion where it is in paragraph five. And I kind of understand that it does, is it modifying anything that we have in subsection B4 or not? I would say probably not, but it doesn't hurt to take this out to have that additional clarity. Okay, and do you feel competent that this doesn't take any teeth out of what we're trying to accomplish? No, I don't think it takes teeth out of what we're trying to accomplish. And I think that we're definitely adding teeth. Although again. With some teeth, yeah. Right, no. And again, and you're gonna hear more a little bit later that, I mean, I've really looked at the cases and this really clarifies the fact that the second circuit is going and where other circuits have already clearly landed that law enforcement has to take this into account in determining what force, if any, to use. Thank you. So the next change. Tom's hand is up. Pardon? No, I'll wait for Martin to finish. Okay, all right. So the next change is adding teeth. So the next change is adding this ban on the training for prohibited restraints. I guess the bottom line on that is it's really codifying what is already occurring, but it certainly keeps this from changing in the future that they won't start training prohibited restraints again. As if you recall, actually back in February when we looked at 808 and when we more recently had Drew Bloom in, we understand that they're not training for these kind of restraints to begin with. So it codifies that and makes it very clear. And I think it really makes very clear that we're serious about the restrictions that we're putting on using prohibited restraints between what we did in 219, which now also because of Ann Donahue's amendment, we do have a clear path for the defense for use of chokeholds in those situations that comply with the standards in this bill. Combined with this restriction on the training, I think it makes very clear where we are with chokeholds. Finally, the last amendment is to change the effective date to January 1st rather than July 1st of 2021. A couple of points there. One is the policymaking process as we've learned is well on its way through that executive order of the governor. We felt that it was waiting for too long to have those standards really to be put into place, waiting almost a year. So that's why that change is there. Yeah, also Martin, my understanding in terms of the training ban, I believe that was a suggestion of the council state governments. Yeah, thank you. Yes. When they testified last week to Senate judiciary. Correct. That's correct. A number of states are actually approaching it in that manner, putting in bans. My understanding of Connecticut, Massachusetts, there may be others. Great. Tom, did you want to ask your question now? Great. Yeah, yes and no. I guess I'm just wondering where this language came from, I guess. I heard that it came from the Senate and it's just wondering if that's is indeed where it did come from. And I'm just wondering again, and I'm wondering if it did come from the Senate, did they bet it or vote on it? Yeah. Which language is that Tom? This amendment. Oh, you mean as far as the reasonable available and such. I would put a big umbrella on it the whole thing. So. Yeah, I'm not. I don't know what the Senate has done, but I'm looking at this, except for having heard from the council state governments with respect to the ban. And I think that as far as the other word, I consider the other bits, word smithing that actually we've had lots of testimony on, for instance, that first change regarding totality of the circumstances. And we've been modifying that given the various testimony we've received. And I think that this change is consistent with the testimony that we have received. As far as the first and the second. Amendments here. Again, we had testimony on the provision. Be five related to. Conduct resulting from impairments. And we had testimony on it without the reasonably should know language and with the reasonably should know language. So I think we've vetted that ourselves as well. And either frankly works, but I think that this makes it. Yeah, it takes away some uncertainty of having that language there instead of really relying on it in subsection before, which makes it very clear we're talking about reasonable perspective of a reasonable law enforcement officer. When we're looking at these various issues. The last one as far as the training ban that language came from Bryn at my, at my suggestion. Given the concept of what I've heard from the council of governments. And so, so that again, I would be more concerned if I didn't already understand. From testimony that we have received. That they're not training these bands. Anyway, you know, this is not part of the training. So let's make it clear that that's not going to change going forward. Right. So, so did bring get that. I think that's a good recommendation from Dick Sears. Committee as far as this language goes. I don't think so. No. Oh, because I have, I heard that that's where it came from. So. Well, I said, I suggested that, that, you know, it's, they heard the testimony from the council of state governments and it was raised as a consideration. Certainly by the Senate, you know, we're trying to. As much as possible. So it's a lot of work to put in place and it's really, it's a lot of work to put in place and to address concerns that they have. And frankly it. Made a lot of sense. Yeah. They did recommend it to the Senate judiciary. So. All right. It's just. It just goes with my overall feeling of this bill and. How we're going to be putting. Police officers into dangerous situations. I mean, we had chief Pete come in and. He had, he was in, you know, a fight for his life and had to use these, these restraints and basically tie these, tie the hands behind, behind their backs and, and still, you know, and take tools away, but still expect people to, you know, you know, our police officers to still go into these situations to me is utterly ridiculous. I don't know if it's going to happen here like has happened other places, you know, with people quitting and resigning and, you know, just getting fed up with, with entities like us getting involved in things we really don't know a lot about other than listening to testimony. I mean, I guess I would ask anybody and I don't expect an answer if you've ever seen a real street fight. And there's no rules in a real street fight. And that's what police are known for getting into and they get into real street fights, but they have rules. And the other person doesn't have any rules. I mean, you know, just picture 160 pound police officer going against a 275 pound behemoth and it would be ugly not being able to use or even having to think twice before you use a, you know, prohibited right, which is a ridiculous term anyway but in but in that second that something could happen in in going forward I certainly I certainly hope none of our brave, you know, our brave police officers gets hurt because because of this BS that we're passing because if I if I was a betting man I would I would put money on it that because of what we're doing somebody's going to get hurt and unnecessarily and then with that I would I don't know if any and I would like an answer on this from anyone is how many people have been killed in Vermont using one of these prohibited restraints. I'm not I see that your hand is up I know that I'm that Ken and Barbara to but not did you want to respond to this directly with your. I mean I so one of my question one of my questions one of my issues with this. I did have to do with prohibited restraints and the event in which they become necessary because you know as Tom had described I was, I have been in those situations except I'm not even 160 pounds. But, you know, from the way I'm interpreting this bill, these restraints can still be used. And I really hope I'm not mistaken here, because that's the reason that I'm able to support this bill is that these restraints can still be used in life or death situations and if, if a cop is tussling around and it's a life or death situation that would become justifiable if you're needing to use it. And that's, that's the way I'm interpreting and that's the reason that I'm able to support this bill. And I just wanted to throw, throw that out there. And I hope I'm not mistaken in my understanding of this bill. That's all. And I think that goes back to representative Donahue's amendment which did clarify. And I just kind of overlooked that language that said you can't use a prohibited restraint for any reason and that did cause some confusion that we're saying elsewhere that yes there's a crime for a serious restraint that leads to death or serious bodily injury, but there's a clear defense to that, which presumably the state's attorneys will be looking at these standards that we're putting forth here to see if that was justified and that would look specifically If we're talking about the deadly, deadly force issue, looking at those standards that we have for deadly force was a threat of death or serious bodily harm imminent and these situations that Tom has just described and you've described. Yeah, I mean it's it's pretty clear that when you're in that street fight, all bets are off and anything can be used that needs to be used including the rock including the choke hold etc. And there is that defense that is out there that is considered by states attorneys if they're ever going to charge these things which so so I'm comfortable that we finally have arrived there, you know the one issue at one point we had put that that's right in the prohibitive restraint crime, but as Bryn told us that really isn't the standard for how we we draft legislation and we have the murder statute the assault statutes all of those, and they don't have the defense specifically in those statutes. You know you have your defense separately, and that's what we have here and I think I will reiterate the fact that the justifiable homicide statute that is on the books right now, that provision that law enforcement could point to is likely unconstitutional in the Supreme Court precedent, we're replacing that with the standard that now can be used to justify not just not just the prohibitive restraint that might lead to death or serious bodily injury but any kind of death that occurs in in a situation with the law enforcement off so we're now making very clear that that is an available defense so yeah and not our thank you for for clarifying that. Okay, so let me get to Ken Barbara and then then Tom. I'm going to tone this down a little bit from where I was but we do have law enforcement not coming back to their jobs. Look at Burlington. I don't think this is as simple as what I'm going to use the term lawyer talk is because we're talking about law enforcement good cops yes there's bad people in those situations, but for the for the majority of time. They're doing their job to protect others and God knows they have to protect themselves so I'm, I'm, I'm still voting, I'm voting no against this amendment to thanks. Thank you. Barbara and then Tom. So, I will be supporting and was going to make a motion to find this amendment friendly this amendment and this bill. It is not anti police officer. It isn't tying their hands behind their backs. It's giving parameters to when we can use the type of force that may need to be used, but not that frequently. And Tom you asked about the statistics. The statistics are frightening in the last decade, 17 Vermonters died as a result of being shot, tasered, or killed by police in Vermont. I asked about the prohibited restraints. We need to be protecting our citizens, a lot of those citizens that are getting killed suffer from mental illness are represented disproportionately from minorities. This bill is not taking away people's rights to defend themselves. Think of all the people I understand some people are leaving law enforcement, think of all the people that are terrified to live or go out of the streets in our state, because of law enforcement it's, it's, it's not a joke it's a tough issue. And this bill seems sensible to me. I just want to remind folks we are talking about, we're talking about the amendments right now. Yes, it's hard not to talk about the underlying bill, but, but we, you know, do you want to focus on, on the. So, so I moved to find this amendment friendly, I now feel like it isn't going to take away from the intent and it does make clear the concern that I think can and Tom had that people were going to do. And not her that people might not be able to use certain positions and defenses. So, I asked to find this amendment friendly back. Okay, thank you. Tom, so. Sorry, Tom, your hand is. I'm on set. Okay. All right, so I'm not. I just have, I have another question, and I'm not being facetious and it's not a rhetorical question, but this is something that's really important to me is making sure that officers are safe if we're going to be passing this and I'd like to know in more detail. From Tom or Ken if they, if they want to answer but why specifically you believe that officers will be in danger. If this passes and it's something I'm genuinely curious about because it's something that concerns me and I just want to make sure that I haven't missed anything either. I think I can touch on that. As far as my belief of prohibited restraints and for clarification when I was speaking earlier, I believe I did make mention that there is situations that that police can use these prohibited restraints. I know that, you know, and it's in this bill, but you know, and I know that the police have been trained for a period of time on using these prohibited restraints. You know, by the state of Vermont. And I'm going to guess when the state of Vermont was was training to do these things that they were probably doing a good job on how to properly. Prohibited restraints because when Barbara was mentioning the the 17 people that have died over the last decade which is which is a tragedy. Not, there wasn't any mention of any of those deaths through prohibited restraint. Again, so I don't remember when the, the training was stopped by the state. I would reiterate that I, I'm going to guess that it was done right because we didn't have any of those deaths. And I do know that police officers do go outside of the state and different and, you know, do different kind of training whether it's at a gym and martial arts Academy or, or things like that. And probably learning a variation of these restraints, not exactly the way that I'm going to guess not exactly the way that maybe the state of Vermont was teaching. And I certainly hope that if they are training to use these restraints outside of the Academy that they're being taught properly. And it's not just one issue that I would hate to see happen as far as potentially a police officer being injured is that that one second that he's got a that they may have to think about what they can do or not do can make a lot of difference in the world. And, and for the safety of somebody who they're trying to take into custody. If, if these pro if the restraints that they're learning somewhere else are technically the same as what the state of Vermont again was obviously doing a good job at, then potentially a person they're trying to take into custody could get hurt. Okay. I think Tom just said it. Very well, my thoughts the only thing I'm going to add is, is, is I, I understand what we're trying to do. I get all that. But I also know there's been last time I knew as of last week I believe there's 43 law enforcement officers that have been killed this year to, and I'm just trying to to take as much thought as I can in this whole situation for everybody that's really all I'm trying to do. Thanks. Thank you. Martin and again we do have emotion in a second and so we are continuing our discussion here on the amendment to Martin. One more comment so fairly standard in the policies and for Vermont law enforcement, including South Burlington, which I know best. It states that choke holds and I can't call exactly how they define but essentially what we're talking about here is prohibitive restraints choke holds. Cannot be used unless other and less deadly forces justified. And I don't think that our this bill, particularly through and Donnie who's amendment through what we did with the justifiable homicide statute. I think that that will continue to be appropriate policy that they that we have in the current law enforcement policies I just don't think it changes that. So, Madam chair. Yes. Can we just vote on this so we can get on. I think people have pretty much got their mind made up so we can get on to the other stuff that's waiting for us because I think it's going to be a long night. Thanks. Okay. So the clerk shall commence to call the roll. The only person we're missing is coach right now. Is that right. Yeah. Correct. Oh, see more got up. Yeah, before we start is the last vote is still open for Patrick. Absolutely. Yeah, I was going to get there but absolutely. Okay, sorry for button. So, Christy leave that open Colburn. Yes. Go slant. Nope. Hashim. Yes. Not. Yes. Rachaelson. Yes, sorry. No. Tully. Yes. Well loaned. Yes. Burn it. No. Okay. Great. Great. Yes. Okay. Great. Thank you, everybody. So. Patrick, do you want to. Give your vote on. Representative Donahue's amendment. I can do that. Okay. Great. Any more. No. Great. Okay. Thank you. And then we'll hold this other one open. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Great. Great. Thank you. Thank you for it for coach and. Thank you, everybody. So, so quick question. Not, are you going to track down the vote from coach so you can have an official. And if you could let me know what it is. I can, I can do that. I can text them and email him here in a moment. Thanks. And I'll try as well. Okay. Great. Thank you. Yeah. Before we go, just. I think you understand how passionate I am about my belief on this bill. I'm pretty sure you do. And I know it's not normally, I know it's not the norm to speak against a bill on the floor. And, and I haven't totally decided that I'm going to. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. Just so there's no surprises. Okay. Well, I do appreciate you. You telling me in. And the committee. Okay. And like I said, normally I wouldn't, but. I think everybody understands why this. Topic or subject is so near and dear to my heart. So. Absolutely. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for saying something. Okay. Anybody else before we. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good journey. Go off YouTube. Nope. All right. All right. I'll take care of everybody. It will be a long day. Okay. Thank you.