 Okay, so we are right. This is Senate judiciary Monday, June 22, 2020. We're taking up an amendment to the bill that is just been posted to the website. It is draft 2.3. It's 1.3. I don't have that on the website yet. Yep, I'm posting it right now. Is it what you emailed to us, Bryn? No, minor change. We can start to. All right. Well, why don't we start over? Not the committee, but looking for the. I'm still got 1.2 on my judiciary website. Just to be clear, it's 1.3. The only difference is a corrected. Cross reference. Okay. Well, why don't I don't a and then assume that we'll get. Okay. On the intent language and assume that we will get to. By the time we get to see the new. By the time we get to the second amendment, we will be at. Sure thing. So for the record, Bryn here from legislative council, and I'd be happy to just talk about draft 1.2. I could just point out where draft 1.3 has been corrected. Otherwise they're identical. So it's really no problem to look at draft 1.2. So this is an instance of amendment. That would add a new section a one to the beginning of S2 19. To add some language about legislative intent. There are two subsections to this. Section a one. And the first sort of light lays out that the intent of the general assembly is that this S2 19. And it's a legislation that addresses systemic racism and disproportionate use of force by law enforcement. And then it lists several acts, which I can go through 2017 act 54. That was the RDAP bill racial disparities advisory panel. 2018 act nine. That was the act that created the executive. Rational equity. 2013 number act. That was the act that was about the statewide policy on the use of force or the training requirements for electronic control devices and the use of those devices by law enforcement. 2016 act number 163. That was the model state policy for the use of body cameras by law enforcement. And 2017 act number 56. That's the professional regulation of law enforcement bill. That also references act or sorry, S3 38, the justice reinvestment bill, which doesn't yet have an act number because it's not quite done winding its way through the process. And then at the bottom of the page there on page one lines 20 to 21, there's language about how there's legislative committees that act on these issues. So this act is really represents. Just a part of the legislature's ongoing effort to deal with these issues. Sub division subsection B on page two. Sets out the intent of the legislature to that law enforcement use community policing strategies. And practice a guardian mindset towards the citizens that they serve and establish a culture of transparency and accountability that will both promote public safety and foster the public trust. And then the last sentence there is to this end, it's the intent of the general assembly that law enforcement use de escalation strategies first and foremost before using force in every interaction with the community. So I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Yeah. Questions or changes or comments about. This good work. Yes. Very clear. So jealous. I just wonder if we could go to line three. Section a. And stop the sentence at. That is a period after use of force period rather than saying by law enforcement in Vermont. I don't know that we really. I'm sorry, where are you? Line three. Actually it's line eight. It is. In the draft I'm looking at. So the sentence reads, it's the first sentence in a. Law enforcement agent. It's on line four. In the general assembly law enforcement agencies in Vermont. You want to. I want to drop that. I just wanted to end with disproportionate use of force. I'm sorry. The new draft is on the committee page. Yeah. That makes a difference. I did this one a few minutes ago. So what's your first sentence stick. In line four, page two. It's the intent of the general assembly. Law enforcement agencies in Vermont. Use community policing strategies to develop collaborative partnerships. We law enforcement and communities adopt policies and practices that reflect the guardian mindset towards the citizens they serve. And establish a culture of transparency and accountability. To promote public safety and foster public input. I think Alice is on a section a one a. So the, the, the very start of it. Right. On line eight, I believe is where Alice is. I don't. The version I have doesn't have any line numbers. Right. So you want the, the act as a continuation of the general assembly's work over the past several years to create meaningful reform. To address systematic racism and disproportionate use of force. By law enforcement. And you want to strike in Vermont. I want us. I want us. And disproportionate use of force. Period. Rather than. I can understand taking out Vermont, but I don't understand taking out law enforcement. All right. By law enforcement. Okay. Then take out just in Vermont. Alice, can I ask what your rationale is? I mean, I think this sends a very bad message that we have a lot of disproportionate use of force going on here. And while we have some, I think this sends a message to the entire country that we have a lot. Which we don't. So that's for sure. I can see that, but I guess the other way to look at it would be, it's owning what we do have. You know, it's saying in Vermont, we, we do have this problem. We, I think it would take care of it. I mean, I think we don't have an excessive problem in that area. And I would be fine with taking out in, in Vermont, because, you know, that's understood that we're legislating for Vermont. I think it's important to keep law enforcement. That's fine. Keeping law enforcement is fine. All right. I think there's general agreement to take out in Vermont. Okay. I'll take, I'll strike that. Anything else on that. On the intent section. Okay. Shall I move on to the second instance of amendment? Yeah. And because Matt's not here and not able to change, I'm going to read from his email to us. I think he's on his way. All right. Well, I think what I'll start with is. I know that I didn't express myself well on this today because I didn't really see it coming and had to work from memory. But in taking a closer look at this, I think we're going to move on to the next slide. I think we're going to choose the section that we're proposing to amend. This, it does at this doesn't implicating the entire justice file. The homostat statute as a defense effectively got the use of force provision. That you're referring to an S2, 19. The list. The first paragraphs, one and two deal with. People not law enforcement. doesn't three still let the officer off the hook if he or she is suppressing opposition in the just and necessary discharge of his or duty. If you needed to get the bill out of there today so it wasn't going to argue with Bruce Philip. I think there's an issue here. Just something to think about see highlighted portion. And the highlighted portion isn't the case of a civil officer, or a military officer, or a private soldier when lawfully called out to suppress a riot or rebellion, or to suppress an invasion or to assist in serving legal process in suppressing opposition against him or her and the just and necessary discharge of his or duty. And that would be what that three in justifiable homicide is what would be struck from use in this particular case. And correct me if I'm wrong, Bryn, when a person under the sections regarding the restraints improper restraints. It would not be a defense under three in an improper restraint. Is that correct is that as narrow as it would be. That is correct. So if it's broader. If a police officer uses an improper restraint. They would be able to use three right they would not be able to raise as a defense subdivision three of the justifiable homicide statute. That would only be if the law enforcement officer used a prohibited restraint that caused serious bodily injury or death. What this language would do is it would exclude from the, it would, this defense under 2305 three would not be available to a person being prosecuted under this new statute. But the others one in two would still be available. That's correct. So justifiable homicide that those defenses that are laid out in one and two and this one is essentially self defense or defense of the person's relation would still be available. And the defense of I committed this act in the suppression of to suppress this person from committing a serious violent crime. That would also remain a defense for a person being prosecuted. So, Bryn if we adopt this amendment. We wouldn't we have to change the reference in 219 that we voted out. Because now it says that there's no change to the availability of the defense in this statute. So the amendment draft 1.3 should replace that language that says it strikes that subdivision. Okay, good. In this section should be construed to limit or restrict the availability of that defense. Okay, good. Just so everybody, everybody understands you may be on the committee and those in the, who may be listening in. If we adopt this police officer who would use an improper restraint, could use as a defense. He was suppressing a person attempting to commit murder sexual assault aggravated sexual assault burglar robbery with force or violence. Yes, that's correct. So, basically the most serious crimes. Well, yes, but we're missing a very major component of police responsibilities. But Joe it's when just to remind ourselves it's when a police officer uses an improper restraint results in death or serious bodily injury to the person who was being restrained. So it's not. If there's a riot. And just to remind us, it's a prohibited restraint. And it's illegal. So they're, they're, they're breaking the law and injuring somebody. They still have these first two defenses. Those first two defenses do not cover a situation. If I am on the ground, being kicked by a riotous mob, and a police officer injects him or herself into that scene. And uses whatever reasonable means are necessary, including a prohibited act in order to stop me from being further kicked. Unless the demonstration is there that I am either being subjected to murder or sexual assault or burglary or robbery. The first two provisions are very specific on how you can use a defense in that case. And what's missing is the ability of the officer to bring calm to a situation that doesn't fit neatly into that definition. But Joe if you think about the tools that are available legally to an officer to stop a riot. If you've all seen television images from the last month and a half. There's a whole panoply of gear that is non lethal, that is called out in the event of a riot. What we're saying is, you, if you see someone kicking someone, it is not proportional, and it is illegal to go in and choke that person out and risk killing them. So, you know what what this, we prohibited these kind of restraints, and we're just making sure that see doesn't inadvertently open the door to using them in any. I mean if you read see it's about as broad as it could be, you could be serving a subpoena, and, and, you know, fall under this. And you and I agree, see is terribly overbroad. Yep. But let's take the case of a riot. There's a reason that word appears in see it does not appear in. It's actually one or two. Under the statute, justifiable homicide has three numerically designated paragraphs it's the third paragraph that you and I agree is overbroad needs to be worked on, but the word riot appears there. It does not appear in the first two sections. So in my mind is I'm reading that if an officer steps into a riotous situation. You may need to use whatever forces necessary at that point but it now as society is changing its attitudes. It falls on the officer to demonstrate why it is they did what they did at that point. I'm trying to reach the place where we don't strip police altogether of things that may need to happen that we all actually would agree needed to happen at that moment in time. But Joe the committee, the committee agreed five to zero to prohibit these restraints. Now what you're arguing is that if, if we can construe something as a riot, they should be allowed to go in and choke whoever they want. And I, I'm just not Philip I'm not saying that I'm saying that there is a very fine line between depriving an officer of a defense that currently exists because we're angry about the way that it has been applied. No, I, that's untrue. Nobody's angry about the way it's been applied we're, we're looking at it now in the light of what's going on around the nation, which is peaceful protests with occasionally violence here or there. But what this provision does is it doesn't even limited to right it says civil process of civil procedure. Philip I agree with you completely that that is overbroad it needs to be removed in this situation. But what, but we haven't got to the point yet, where we're talking about the two things now that an officer would have available as a defense. The two things are very specific and limited. It says they can protect their own life, or the life of a husband wife parent child brother sister master mistress servant guardian or ward. But the officer can't protect me in that situation, but under the other one, but under the other one it says in the suppression of a person attempting to commit murder. I'm not being murdered if I'm being kicked and I'm on the ground, or sexual assault, I'm not being sexually assaulted, or burglary or robbery, and I'm not subjected to either of those. So what we're saying is the officer can't even raise as a defense. Benning is being assaulted. I can't use the defense that I used some improper restraint to try to stop that from. Yeah. First of all, remember that under this is limited to the improper restraint. Second of all, it is only when serious bodily injury and death occurs as a result of that improper restraint that police officer would be charged right. So the mere fact of using it may result in disciplinary issues, but it wouldn't rise to the level of the 20 year felony. If, if the So I, while I understand your example, I was fairly comfortable with Matt's suggestion, because I think, I mean, if we were using it broadly. There's no use of force, et cetera. I still as, as Phillip said, they've still got a number of different avenues. It's when they use an improper restraint. A prohibited restraint. Right. Yeah. Thank you for, I'm still using the wrong term. I've got to get my. I keep saying that because all of the other things guns, pepper spray, different. That we've heard about tasers, pepper balls, all of those things are illegal and can be used under various circumstances. We're saying this one thing is illegal, but you still if you cause bodily injury or serious harm, because you're afraid of your own life. Because you're concerned, Joe, as we discussed it. Now you're broadening it to, if a policeman sees somebody being kicked, they need to be able to cause serious bodily injury by choking someone. And I, I, I think at that point we've gone all the way back to where we started, which is police having the right to choke people when they feel it's necessary. I think that's the level I'm trying to get to a middle ground that enables an argument to be made. I think I don't think. What the amendment now says, and Senator Sears has said, we'll look at C and take testimony later when we have time. What it does now is it prohibit C from being a rationale for using the prohibited restraint. You know, I think you and I agree C needs more work. I would be for striking it all together. Sounds like you would want some modification up. Well, can I, you know, if you use the example of Kent State National Guard, they were not police officers, they were the National Guard at Kent State, which was 50 years ago, which is indelibly marked in all of our minds who are older than 50, I guess. Maybe those of us who are 60 and can remember. I suppose they could have said they were out to suppress a riot or rebellion and killed four kids. And under this, justifiable homicide, they wouldn't have been culpable at all. So I think in the narrow sense that we're using this and that's why C needs to really be changed under Vermont law and needs to be addressed. And I've committed to taking it up Thursday and Friday. And I'm not sure we'll get through it all in the limited amount of time we have between now and the end of the end of adjournment of the complete session. But I think that, that for the purposes of the narrow purposes of this bill prohibitive restraints, that portion of this bill, that I'm comfortable that one and two provide that. And I'm, and also I want to point out that in the use of force bill, we talk about proportionality, the use of force being proportional. And those crimes in to rise to a level that a DUI or a in the Georgia case, or a $20 counterfeit bill in the Minneapolis case would not rise to where improper use of force or restraint in the Minneapolis case. I'm just want to, that's why I'm willing to support this. But, you know, it's up to the whole committee and if you'd rather not have your name, we can separate these two amendments out so there's different names on the two amendments. I, the overall concept of proportionality, I think is very important here, use the analogy of Kent State. In hindsight, every one of us believes they were way out of line in what they were doing. How do you correct that behavior. When a cop walks up to a group of people on the street who are having a verbal argument and pushes one of them to the ground. To me that's way out of line, totally and proportional to what was actually going on. We all agree to that part of it. There are situations though when we charge officers with keeping the peace that there has to be some way for them to be able to present an argument that what they did was proportional to the circumstances. And at the end of the day it is up to a jury to decide whether that is true or it is not true. And I'm nervous that we are. We're approaching a point where our desire to correct wrong behavior is stretching out a little too far for me to be comfortable. In particular amendment. I'm uncomfortable just depriving the officer of any way to make an argument, unless it falls within the justifiable homicide language that all of us are normally entitled to, because in that uniform they are responsible for doing something you and I are not responsible for. I'm troubled by extending for us is, excuse me, Joe, we've lost the video. I don't know what's happened. Oh, there we are. We're back. Sorry, Joe. That's okay having technical difficulties. And I just got an email from someone saying the YouTube is not screaming so I'm reaching out to it to figure that out as well. Okay. That Valerio has joined us and I don't know if Matt's heard any of the debate or not, but we'd love to have your counsel. I've heard the, I've heard some of it I don't think I've heard it all. And what I heard is a little confusing, but I had concerns about, as you know, last week this using just file invoking just file homicide as part of the bill as well, but I haven't what I haven't seen or what I'm not sure of is what the amendment is. I see amendment would would strike three. So a person who kills a police officer who uses an in a prohibited restraint again, keep using the term improper, a prohibited restraints with it results in serious in depth the serious bodily injury would be able to use one and two of justifiable homicide but not three. And just to clarify, Matt, it doesn't strike three. It just says it's not available in this case. Oh, of the of 2305 it struck it says that three isn't available. Yeah, right to an officer. Yeah, right. Who uses the prohibited restraint. Wow, that's some put yourself in the defense attorney's role for a minute and you're facing a jury with that question. Well, I'll just put try to put myself in an officer's position to or or in. See the way this is the way justifiable homicide is written is one and two are for lay people, which could apply to anybody, but three is specifically designed for officers. One of the things this really shows I think this that Senator Sears, I know you're committed to doing this but the justifiable homicide needs to be reworked seriously. Okay, but I don't know that. I thought this was your suggestion that your suggestion was to leave justifiable homicide out of it and allow common law defenses of just, you know, regular self defense and the like to be to be part of it it's kind of it's I'm worried about how a court would interpret it if you left justifiable homicide in but then did but struck three Matt are you saying that we should think about just removing the reference to justifiable homicide all together from to that's what I was trying to get at last week, only because when you create a statute that puts limits on what your defenses might be. Those are the defenses that I think that you end up having I can see a court interpreting it saying look, it'd be it'd be one thing if you use this technique. You know, to suppress one of these crimes that are listed here and number three but if you did it and it wasn't didn't fit those specific categories then now you've got a problem. But as I read Brin's email about that. I haven't had the benefit of that but bring correct me if I'm wrong but you thought there was a conflict between 2305 three and what we were passing and it was not clear which would take precedence that's part of it too. I mean, can I just ask for it. That's correct. I think that the two statute stand in pretty stark opposition to one another. So I think an attorney could make an argument that 2305 would be effectively repealed by the new by the new crime in 1032 if it's silent on whether or not that is available for a for a defense or not. Well, if if the options are to strike the reference to 2305 all together, or the amendment that makes see unavailable, or to go with what Joe wants. I would take the first one, which is getting rid of the reference to 2305 all together. Let me remind you what I originally proposed which was the affirmative defense. See what I what I don't like. Let me just finish with the the onus is on the on the defense to prove that it was justifiable. But I but I feel like then we're offering an affirmative defense that doesn't exist. Now, for a crime that we're prohibiting. We're at once creating a new crime and a prohibition and adding a defense that doesn't exist. So it's, it's a one step forward and half a step back. Whereas I think if we take Matt suggestion and we eliminate the reference altogether. It accomplishes more what we've sent out to do. You know, my understanding is anytime that you guys create a new crime, any of the common law defenses exist. So you can have a defensive self defensive others, and you have the ability to respond proportionally to whatever the threat is sufficient to repel that at any given time and I'm generally giving you self defense type concepts. And I, you know, Brenda you disagree with that interpretation because that's what we do all the time right. I don't I don't disagree with that. I think that my point was because the justifiable homicide statute exists with the specific subsection that deals with law enforcement that there could be an argument made for implied repeal of that section. If it was silent on on 2305 C or three. I'm obviously not taking a position on that I was just pointing it out for the committee that. So, if I could just summarize a little bit so if we take out the reference, and this is to bring. If we take out the reference to 2305. If there was a case where an officer use the prohibited restraint caused serious bodily harm or death. There would still be a determination made by a state's attorney, whether to charge and wouldn't the state's attorney consider these sorts of issues whether it was self defense, etc. And, and then it would move theoretically to a courtroom where again there would be a consideration of these common law defenses, or other defenses available. Right presuming the defense attorney raised, raised the defense yes. Yep. So we're, if we're silent on 2305 in 219. It doesn't leave someone who uses the prohibited defense without a legal defense. They still have multiple possibilities of either not being charged or being acquitted. It's just that we're not offering them a helpful defense in the form of an affirmative defense. I think that's correct all the common law defenses would still be available. I think that the justifiable homicide statute would still be available. The question I had was whether or not that specific part of the justifiable homicide statute could be seen as an implied repeal by the legislature based on the new the new language. It would be fine if it was seen that way because the 2305 three seems to me. I mean it was put in place in the 80s and it was a different time. But when you look at it now it's it's so broad. I can't see how you could ever convict a police officer. It basically immunizes them from almost anything. Not a court may decide that it was there is no implied repeal and it may just be considered a defense to the me listen to this conversation. What's that. The court may listen to this conversation in terms of legislative intent. Yep. I still think that. I won't. I'm sorry to not have a second amendment to this bill. Not to the Constitution. Right. Just in case. Or to go with the suggestion. To remain to go with an affirmative defense. Senator Baruch has been adamant against an affirmative defense. I've been supportive of it because I think it solves all of these problems we've just talked about, but I'm flexible here. I have committed to working on 90. 25, the justifiable homicide statute. I believe that this has highlighted this particular conversation as highlighted the need to revise this and frankly, if we're in a riot, I don't know what the justification is to kill somebody. To suppress a riot or so. I mean, I just don't I need to hear more about that. And why in 1983. That was an amendment in 1983 and I don't know what that amendment was Bryn. But the bill that the law is from obviously from much earlier. So, the use of the term master and mistress and board certainly is from and servant from much earlier than 1983, I'm sure. I think that's right. I haven't been able to get into the building. Look at the. Yeah. Look at the actual books because I've got to look at the books. I would guess that the, that the, that there was an amendment made in 1983. For whatever reason, but that the law itself is probably from maybe even the 1800s. Yeah, that may be. Senator Baruch. So, Dick, I, I, given what we've said, I would move that we. Adopt the intent language and rewrite the second amendment so that it strikes the reference in 219 as past to the 2305. Peace altogether. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Does everybody understand Senator Bruce motion. With that, I think I'm just going to. Okay. Senator what? Just make sure that I understand it. So what you're saying is that we will. Get rid of any reference at all to any. Defense. Yes. Well, yeah. Justifiable homicide. The only thing that was in the bill was a reference to 2305 justifiable homicide. Senator Bruce amendment would strike justifiable homicide that reference from bill. And then add the intent language. It would strike the reference from the bill, but it would leave the statute as it is. Right. Right. And not, and not put in. I'm not going to say that. Senator Sears. None of my wonderful suggestions. Right. I thought your suggestion was wonderful. Thank you. I actually. I think that. I'm. Throughout this whole conversation have been a little nervous about. Kind of what that we're. You know, Maybe even overreacting. And I don't think that there's anything justifiable about somebody doing some of the horrific things that we've seen, but. I, I. There I'm nervous about some of the things that. We are. You know, I think that there, I'm sure we'll be cases on them and. We'll see what happens. I am. I appreciate that. I want to make clear. I'm not nervous about what happens as a result of us. Rehibiting certain restraints. No. They've been. Outlawed. I heard New York City had outlawed them in 1987, yet somebody's accused of using one yesterday. So, you know, that it's, it's something that. I just don't see as. But as, as I've said earlier, and both Senator Nicker and I were trained in restraints. I don't see this as such a. Why anybody's using them is beyond me. And why. You know, kneeling on somebody's neck is, is considered a form of restraint. That's even necessary. So when it's. It's hard. I. So I'll support the amendment from Senator. Or the motion from Senator. Even though I still think that. So with the understanding that we will look at. 2305 justifiable homicide. But I don't know, you know, given the short period of time, we have left what, where it goes. So, so I wonder, could we hear from Matt on where that leaves. A defense for a police officer. What are the, you had said the common law ones would still hold up. But I think so. I mean, that's the, that's what typically happens is that, you know, the police officers, you know, the police officers and the police officers. Sometimes I don't think that they have. Self or others. But your response has to be proportional to whatever the threat is. You cannot. You know, like they say, you can't, you know, you can't be a, bring a gun to a fist fight. Right. You, if you're involved, if you're confronting a fist fight, you have to respond with some kind of. If you are confronted with deathly force, you have the right to meet it with deadly force. And, you know, that is, so that is still available. What I don't think you can do is, you know, you have a DUI stop and as you're chasing the guy away, you can't shoot him in the back. That's not, you know, that's, again, a completely different thing. And as it relates to your restraint issue. You know, you've outlawed a particular type of restraint. And, you know, I, the question is what does it do to that. And I'm not, I'm not exactly sure, you know, what, what circumstances would rise to the level where you would have to use that kind of deadly force. Say you're fighting over a gun. Something like that. I mean, that'd be the, that'd probably be the only kind of thing. It couldn't be for, I mean, the things we're seeing are not, they aren't people being confronted with guns. They're $20, you know, bad bills and DUIs and that kind of thing. I think that the sum and substance of the argument in front of us proportionality seems to be the whole conversation. We all know what's way out of line. And it's that gray area in between that people get frustrated about. And I'm not sure I want to leave a record that suggests we are getting rid of 200 years of jurisprudence in the attempt to react to what we're seeing on the news these days. How are we getting rid of 200 years of jurisprudence. Well, if, if we leave any piece of this record as suggesting that we are repealing the language in justifiable homicide, that would be 1983 Joe. We don't know exactly what the 1983 provisions were at this moment in time. My concern is you have a very long history of common law, which has presented a jury with what is proportional under the circumstances, they have to listen to that and make a decision. And I know there's frustration about some police officers getting away with something they shouldn't have gotten away with. If we leave the record on voting with this that we're suggesting we're trying to repeal that ability of an officer to make a defense that is correctly proportional to what happened under the circumstances. No, what Matt is saying is if it is proportional there is a defense. Well, I agree with him 100% and I'm hoping to leave that as part of this record going forward. I think I think if you read s1 19 and s2 19 together. You would see a record of looking at proportionality in the use of force, and we're prohibiting in s2 19 a certain use of force that has been proven to be deadly, or provide or create serious bodily injury. We're not. So, I don't see is our commitment to continue to look at justifiable homicide statutes as being anything other than a serious need to update anything that in this day uses in our laws, terms like master, servant, and mistress as being something. You know that's akin to Vermont in 2020 versus Vermont in 1810. So I don't see a commitment to look at a law that's long overdue for a vision as being something that undoes a defense to anyone whether they be a law enforcement officer or a state senator or a citizen of the state of Vermont. Dick, I think you rightly pointed out that somewhere down the road a court will be looking back at this record decide what our intent was. I'm really saying that if I vote for this amendment and the bill itself. I am doing so with a clear understanding that we are not intending to repeal anything at this point in time. Whatever defenses have been traditionally raised can still be raised. I believe in the right for people to defend themselves. And can I just go ahead, you know. Well, I don't think I'm not sure what will happen when we look at the that justifiable homicide section but in my mind I have no intent to repeal it, but to update it. I mean I don't think that that is our intent right is to to repeal that at all but to look at what it means now and how it should be written and interpreted. On the universe. I'll go a step further though on the end of on the 50th anniversary of Kent State. We ought to be darn clear about your ability to shoot people because they are protesting. Yeah, yeah, I agree but I, I do think that if courts are looking at our intent and I think that we need to make it clear that our intent is not necessarily to repeal. But to re to look at it in terms of what we need now. I hope I have no intention to repeal that. I hope is that none of this ever happens. Yeah, that police officers will not use the prohibited restraints under any circumstances, and will not. We won't have serious bodily injury and death as a result. So, I'm ready to vote. Peggy, could you, the Senator Bruce amendment, could you please call the role, unless there's further discussion. Let me just ask Bryn, can I just ask Bryn something so brand. With regard to the issue of the officer and a person are in a fight over a gun. If the officer uses one of the prohibited restraints, he still has a defense. Oh, I think that's a that would be a pretty clear self defense case. Okay. Yes. Thank you. I just want to make sure this is draft 1.3 you're talking about right draft 1.3 as amended when the amendment would be to take out any reference to justifiable homicide in in S2 19. It will just be striking subdivision C in section five. Okay, adding intent language. Do you do like a new version that would be 1.4 that would have all the stuff or we're voting on 1.3. It'll be 2.1. So okay so we're going to vote on 2.1 not 1.3 correct. Correct. So, let me get this clear. In this version we're taking out the second amendment the second proposal of amendment right. Which refers to and we're revising the second proposal amendment. Take out the reference to the law on justifiable homicide. Right, but then you don't need this. It in there at all. Well, anyway, okay. Well, you need to take it out because in 2019 version that's on the floor. The whole second amendment is in the version that's on the floor. I don't know what's on the floor. So what, what we voted on Friday had a reference to 2305. Yes, this updated amendment would strike that reference in 219. As we passed it on Friday. Right. Okay. Everybody clear. Yes. Any further discussion. And I understand the technical difficulties and I hope that. The YouTube recording is running. It is. It is. Okay. So this. This is an amendment actually from all of us. Is there anyone who wants their name off the amendment, by the way? I will on it. On it off of it. It's already on. Everybody's on. Does anybody want to come on? You don't want to come on. But I'm a little bit disappointed. I don't know what to do. Everybody want to take their name off. That's the question. All right. If he would please call the roll. Yes. Senator white. Yes. Senator Barouth. Yes. Senator Benning. Yes. Senator Nica. Yes. Senator Sears. Yes. So. John Blumer will be in tomorrow's calendar when we report S-119 and S-219. Senator Bruce will report 219. I'm reporting 119. I don't know who comes first. I don't know who that matters. Whoever is on second. I knew you were going to say that. I knew you were going to say that. They're on third. So we'll see you all later this afternoon I guess. So do we have a session at 3.30? Yes, today. And it's going to go forever. Could we get a copy of the amendment that we just did please? Yes. I'll send it to all of you right now. Thank you, Brynne. Brynne's already written. Brynne's so far ahead of us. Okay. And we're meeting. Thank you for your counsel. Thank you, Matt. We're meeting time off for a two-hour dentist appointment. Oh no. Oh my god. Right now. We're on tomorrow at 10.30, right? 10.30 or 15 minutes after floor ends. Okay. I'm not, you know, we're not sure how long we'll go on. We've only got Eric as a witness. So hopefully he can sit at home and rest until we're available. Thank you. We're taking up the deeds issue. And I'm sure you're all looking forward to hearing from the St. Albans probate bar, which is on Wednesday. And Joe will be prepared. May I ask you a question, Senator Sears? Did you hear back from the House at all about the rape kit testing? I have not. But I have heard the good news is that the House Judiciary and Health Institutions Committees have agreed with our amendments to F-338, so it'll be on its way to the governor. Oh good. Great. Good. Thank you. Yeah. No, that's really good. I mean, that's an important bill. Yeah. That Brynne take a deep bow on that one for all the drafting and work you did on that. It is true beginning, you know, it's really important of the justice reforms that we can do in terms of the criminal justice system. That's great. So good work, everybody. Yep. All right. I've been in now. Thank you. See you. See you in three hours, some of you, some of you too.