 Good morning. This is Senate judiciary second edition and we're taking up as 184 a bill having to do with justifiable homicide. We have a straight call redraft by Eric Fitzpatrick. It's draft 1.1. Eric, do you want to walk through the changes please. Sure, we'll do. Good morning, everybody. Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Council here to walk the committee through the redrafted committee strike all version of S184 to act relating to self defense and defense of others. Senator Zews, you want to pull up the language real quick or I think he might have frozen there. I don't think we need to read. I don't think we need to pull it up. Okay, great. So the two you'll see there's two changes in the bill. Essentially deals with, as I'm sure the members all remember that it's clarifying some legislation that the legislature and this committee passed last year to be clear that when you made amendments to the self defense justifiable homicide statute. It did not mean to remove the ability of a person to raise the defense of defense of others. So in other words, not just the self defense defense, which is clearly preserved, but also to make sure that defense of others which is a defense that was available and I don't think anybody intended to to override with the changes that you made last year, just to make clear that that's not the case. So there's not a change to that piece of the bill. That's the middle subsection of the bill which just makes clear that the defense applies when it's your defending yourself or any other person. And then similarly, a similar changes in this strike all amendment is proposed to be made to the first piece of the bill the first defense provision I'm just pulling that up right now. And the idea there as well you see there's there are listed relations. In other words, members of a person's family and others for whom a person can raise that defense, and it's expanded to include any other per any person essentially. So, I'm going to pull that up right now I actually don't have it on the screen so give me a moment. So you see, in subdivision a one is where that changes proposed to be made that that the person is guiltless of killing or wounding another person, the existing statute provides and the just the necessary defense of the person's own life or the life of and then there are specifically listed. And then there are other persons whom the person could defend and be justified in that defense and that's existing statute that wasn't changed. I shouldn't say that there were some technical changes made to that language in the bill last year, but substantively no changes other than taking out you may recall that I think mistress master mistress were in there as well and that was struck because terminology that you no longer use but otherwise no substantive changes really to this provision, but the proposal here is to also provide that just in this necessary defense applies not only if you're defending one of those individuals in other words the person's spouse parent child sibling guardian or ward, but rather it would apply for the just the necessary defense of any other person. So that's the proposal for that first piece. And the second change you'll see at the very end of the amendment. That actually comes directly out of the existing aggravated assault statute. And that's to, you know, really clarify the same point that I mentioned earlier which is that the intent here with any change that you make is not to, to, you know, limit or infringe or overrule or an otherwise negate any any defenses that a person would have a common law, because it's conceivable that changes that the legislature makes could be interpreted that way. It could be interpreted to mean that oh these other common law defenses are no longer available. And that's exactly the concern for, you know, you were trying to address with the middle part of the bill to make sure that you're not inadvertently overruling the common law defense of defensive others. So this just makes that clear. And it's done elsewhere in the statutes as well so it's, I think familiar to the courts. One question Eric and the bill is introduced there was section one had 2305 justifiable homicide, the one, two, and then a three, which was in the case of law enforcement officer that's been taken out of this draft. Is there a reason for that. I think the three is still in there. Do you mean the law enforcement officer, the bottom of page one finds 1920 21. Yeah, it's not in draft 1.1. Yeah, it is. Not the one I just printed out. Maybe the printer, maybe your printer cut it off. It's in mind. Do you mean what I'm looking at? Well, let me look at my copy that I just pulled up off the web page. It's all entirely possible that my printer is as unstable as I as my computer is. No, my copy from the web page does not have three in it. Oh yes it does wait a minute it does. So I for some reason it didn't print. Oh yes it does. Yeah, I'm sorry. That's okay. I apologize. You're glad you glad you made sure. Yeah, no it does. Okay. Scratch that question. We read it wrong. And he had their questions for her. Actually, Senator Benning. This is actually for Eric and for Senator Bruce. This is current language. But line 16 page one. The words in the first or violent suppression. Exactly. Who is that referencing using the deadly force against a forceful or violent burglary. I don't see that as a clean stretch of language and I'm struggling to figure out whether we should take the time to correct this. It's not the way I read it. Okay, how do you read it. I read it and I think that the, that the. That language was changed in act. In the bill last year. And I say changed. But I think technically the placement of the, of the language was changed. I don't think the intent was to change the meaning. And I think the meeting was and remains. The forceful and violent suppression. Is by the actor. But by the person. You know, repelling the peril. I think. Actually, I'm looking at age 145 or act 27. I think it was in the last year. And forceful and violent or underlined. So they were added last year. But it was in the last, I think it was in the last, the existing lock. It was struck. It was, it was in the later part of that sentence. I think. Well, Eric, if I can be. Clear in my understanding. You're looking at those words forceful and violent. And applying them to the person who is using. The language force to repel. A burglary. You're not looking at that language as a burglary that is being committed in a forceful or violent way. That's the way I'm reading it. There may be other readings. I'd be interested to hear how other folks are, but I think. I think that's the way I'm reading it. I mean, if you, if you take out forceful and violent. It's just as a thought experiment. If you just say in the suppression of it's pretty clear. So it's, it's describing how you would suppress somebody. Who's threatening someone else in imminent. That's how I read it. So. In the case of Arbery. Forgotten his first name. In Georgia. The allegations from the defendant were that he was committing a burglary. But a clear reading of the video was that he was not doing. Even if it was a burglary, he was not doing it in a forceful or violent manner. And I'm trying to figure out. We've already given the actor in this particular section. Authority. To repel with deadly force. Why are we repeating. Forceful or violent. I'm just trying to make sure we're all on the same page. Okay. Act. I understand deadly force is forceful and violent. So if you're applying it to the actor, that's one thing. But was our intent to say. Somebody in Arbery's position. Would not entitle. An actor here. To repel with deadly force. Joe in, in the original act. 27. The language that was, that was added. Was. Forceful and violent. The other stuff was also added, but in that, this particular. In the forceful or violent suppression of a person attempting to commit murder. Sexual assault aggravated sexual assault, burglary or robbery. And what was struck was with force or violence. So whatever reason we, we took the force or violence. Change it to. Forceful or violent suppression in front of that. So does that make sense? I'm reading. So I understand, Dick, what we did. No, I don't think. No, no, my point is that. I don't know. But before it had read in the current law before this. Had it read it had read. Sexual assault aggravated sexual assault, burglary or robbery. With force or violence. Some a colon robbery with force of violence. I think they wanted to make clear. That it was with force or violence. And they, they moved the forceful of violent suppression. And they moved the forceful of violence. And they moved the forceful of violence. To that. Or front of the section. Does that make sense? Senator. Ruth. Yeah. I think. I see Joe's point that, that there's. It looks to me to be unnecessary. Honestly. To say forceful and violent. Because. We're already, as he said. You know, we're already looking at that kind of granting that they can repel with deadly force in the suppression of a person attempting to commit these things. So. I suppose one possibility is you could strike. Forceful or violent. I do think. With this. What I worry is that this draft is very clear, very simple. And I worry that we're going to make another change, then the house is going to want to revisit it next year. So, I don't add the only thing that I oppose is constant revision of justifiable homicide. So I could either go with striking forceful and violent or leaving it alone. I would hope that we wouldn't pick it up again. I understand the frustration. If everybody else is reading this as just fine, I'll step back. But I question the wisdom of why that language is in there. I'm lucky that Evan mean and represent the state's attorney. Matt Valero Valerio represent the defender general or is the defender general are here and may wish to comment on the changes as well as Senator Benning's concern about forceful and violent. Who wants to go first. Evan, go ahead. I suppose I'll suppose I'll be the lucky volunteer. This is Evan mean and from the Department of State. I'll be the first. Lesson learned. You know, it's interesting because I remember we had a bit of a conversation about this at the, at the last, the last hearing and I, I read the new draft of the bill and I, I was having an internal debate about myself with myself about whether to ask the exact same question that I did. And the side of me that that that wants to not complicate this further was prevailing and I wasn't going to say anything. And then and then Senator Benning raised the issue and and I think it's, I think it's perhaps a good question to ask I think there's, I think one legitimate reading of the language that exists in the current in the current bill is that, you know, there's a two tier inquiry the first would be whoever whoever's repelling these offenses needs to first be justified in using force or violence to do so. Because that's sort of one question because that could be something less than deadly force. And then the use of deadly force also needs to be justified itself. And at the same time, some some legislative language that I had sent to both Senator Benning and Eric Fitzpatrick and read burglary or robbery with force or violence. And it eliminated, it eliminated the comma that that used to appear in this statute to make it make it clear that the burglar in the robbery had to be committed in a violent way. Otherwise you can't just go up and use deadly force. So, you know, could some added clarification be helpful perhaps. I do think the language in the proposed bill is is pretty good, especially with the addition of the comment about common law. Matt. I was actually, I'm in favor of like not not changing this. What this tried to do was incorporate the prior understood language involving defensive. And the prior justifiable homicide statute, which was derived from common law, that there's been a lot of case law and an understanding of no we don't get a lot of these cases. But this goes back, you know, literally hundreds of years. So common law, you know, right to defend your own home where you don't have it, you don't have a duty to retreat in your own home. And the like and that isn't kind of incorporated into this and all the way these have developed is on a case by case basis, but it's understood. I'm worried that if you take out some of this language that has been in there for quite a number of years that a court might look at it and say, oh, they're trying to change something substantive. And I think that what you're trying to do with this bill is actually maintained what has always been available at common law. Courts look at things oddly and I at times with language that has been around for a long time changes. And, you know, I point no further to, you know, judge Treadwell's interpretation of the midpoint review, which has been around for a really long time but there was a, you know, minor change in the criteria for which it is but then all of a sudden it wasn't retroactive. I don't understand the opinion I've told them that but I, you know, I just worry about what a court will do when you start changing language that has been there traditionally, because they're going to infer that there's some sort of intent to change the law, as opposed to clean it up because it was old. I'd leave it alone. Thank you. Thank you very much for your effort of bending. Sure, I'm hearing, and I'm digesting. This is my bill. I don't want to screw it up. The phrase is something we actually moved. It's been language it's been there for 100 years, but it's a phrase that we moved. As I read it, I come up with a question. If everybody from the state and the defense is satisfied with it and nobody on this committee is looking at that saying, that's an awkward piece of English language, then I'm just going to end it there and we'll move on because I want to build a pass. Okay, well the fact that we moved it from where it had been. Last year in act 40 in act 27. No signifies that we, and I don't remember the reasons for moving it but I know we did. So, I would favor leaving as is. Probably for the reasons that Matt just suggested. I just would say that. As a co-sponsor of the bill, Senator bedding along with Brock Chittin and column or Cummings Ingalls Lyons, McCormack, Nithka parent, Berchuk, Starr, Tarenzini, Westman and white. So, am I on this one? Yes, is the actually the only bill I've submitted with a quorum of senators attached to it so I'm very happy with that and I'm not trying to extend this conversation by any stretch. The question has been answered, and I'm happy to move on from there. Believe it. So, are there any other further questions or comments about draft 1.1 hearing none is there a motion to report. To amend the bill as seen in draft 1.1. 121 1223 p.m. Senator and white has moved that we report the bill favor I report that we amend the bill as 184 as seen in draft 1.1 any further discussion from anyone. That's done Peggy would you please call the roll. Senator Benning. Hi. Senator Nica. Hi, yes. Senator white. Yes. Senator Baruth. Yes. Senator Sears. Yes. All right, it's been amended. Now the question is shall we report as 184 as amended favorably. I think the latest move that we report as 184 favorably as amended any further discussion from anyone. My only comment would be that Senator Benning reported. I think that's probably a given. I thought Jeanette was jumping out there to make that effort herself so. No, no, no, no. I'm happy to report. Senator Benning, excuse me, Senator White, we have to vote first before we can decide who reported is. Peggy could you please call the roll again. Senator Benning. Yes. Senator Nica. Yes. Senator White. Yes. Senator Baruth. Yes. Senator Sears. Yes. So we're unanimous and that Senator Benning, would you like to report this bill. I'd be happy to Senator Sears. And can I ask Peggy, how do I get this up to Senator Blumer? I'll send you any, I will send you an email telling me to reply all. Thank you. Really rather simple. All right. One other matter. It's still don't send that document though that. Yeah, yeah, I'll wait for you to give me the clean version, Eric. Yeah. Thank you. I will need a list of witnesses. Don't worry about a summary. I can handle this one. Okay. I'll get you the witnesses. On F1 13, the PFOA bill. We had a third amendment. I think I sent out an email, but I hope everybody's okay with changing the date from effective date from July 1, 2021 to July 1, 2022. And that would be a, the third amendment to the bill. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. There was a, can I just say something about that? You know, that came up when we were doing the walkthrough. And for some reason. Michael Gray had some comments about it, about maybe leaving it at 21. I have to admit, I had a big question mark by it. I mean, I'm fine to change it, but why did he question it in the beginning? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't have some discussion about it briefly. Yeah. Senator Sears, do I need to do anything on that? Or is that going to be like an amendment on the floor? I think Michael has it ready for the floor. Could you just check with him? Because right now on the calendar or two on the notice calendar or two amendments. The two we adopted at the third. All right. So I don't think I need to do anything because we've already sent that amendment to the secretary. If you would just send a note to Michael Grady. Asking him to send that amendment to the secretary. Okay.