Hello people of the internet, my name is Johnny. Welcome back to yet another FNAF news video and today is a very, very exciting day because we just got our first official poster for the upcoming FNAF movie.  Basically, Jason Blum, who is the head of Blumhouse Productions, the people behind the FNAF film, was doing an hourly countdown over on Twitter. A lot of people, as you can tell from my face, were waiting in anticipation for it to reach zero because we were kind of expecting a FNAF trailer. But honestly, I'll take a poster because it looks absolutely phenomenal. So let's not waste any more time. Let's talk about it. This is what it looks like. As you can see, it is the official reveal for the four main animatronics, Freddie Bonnie, Chica Foxy, and also Mr. Cupcake. I won't forget about him. I'm assuming this is just a straight up picture of the live action animatronics made by Jim Henson's Creature Company for the film. I don't know why they would use CGI, so I'm assuming this is what the full animatronics look like, which is insane, because they do look like they got ripped straight from the frickin' first game. Like, I genuinely cannot get over how just spot on these guys look.  It looks frickin' insane. They all look absolutely amazing. Freddie's bow tie, as you can see, I mean, it looks like an actual real legit bow tie. It's got so much detail on it. Foxy in the back looks so menacing.  You can even see a whole bunch of details on the other animatronics. Like I said, Bonnie has a more realistic, like, bow tie. He also has a guitar strat for his actual guitar, which also looks like it's been ripped straight out of the games. I mean, that looks identical to what his guitar looks like in FNAF VR Help Wanted when you have to repair it and you gotta twist the little, the twisty things on the guitar. I'm not a musician, I don't know what they're called, but it looks absolutely incredible. Even Coral lights up, and yes, I'm going back to Coral. They just look absolutely frickin' insane, and we also have an official reveal for the actual logo. It appears that they're not going to be going with the classic FNAF logo that has that hacked font that we all know and love and see in YouTube thumbnails all the time these days. Nope, they're going with something entirely different, of course, still rocking the Five Nights at Freddy's text, but it is more akin to what the text and the font looks like on the Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria sign that we're gonna see in the FNAF movie. And of course, you've got the classic Can You Survive, Five Nights at Freddy's, October 27th. Why frankly, I still just can't believe how incredibly good these guys look. Like, oh my God, their fur texture looks absolutely amazing.  I cannot wait to see these guys in action, hopefully in a teaser trailer or maybe full-on trailer soon. That's what I'm hoping at least. Because if you didn't see the news, a like 53 second long teaser trailer was rated 14A, so suitable for viewers 14 and up in Canada. So I'm hoping we can get that pretty soon. And of course, we did also get that leaked three minute long like final trailer a couple of weeks ago. So hopefully we can get a full-on teaser trailer pretty soon, cause I wanna see these guys in action. I wanna see them moving around. I wanna see all the actors involved like Josh and Elizabeth and William Afton, you know, Matthew Lillard. Imagine we can see him walking around. It's gonna be so cool. I hope we can get something soon. And I know I sound selfish for getting a freaking poster and like, oh, but I also wanted a teaser trailer and I want this and I want this. But honestly, it's just cause I can't wait to get this film. We've been waiting so long. I've just been staring at this poster for like five minutes straight and I still can't get over how incredible these guys look. I'm popping in during editing cause we got a bit more to talk about. They released a few extra posters and even an official website while I was editing that main segment. So first up, we have four, not technically new posters, but we have individual posters of Freddie, Bonnie, Chica and Foxy. First up, of course, we got main man Freddie with his terrifying red eyes. Not much to talk about with this teaser because he was kind of front and center in the main poster. So he was the animatronic we saw the most of but he still looks absolutely incredible. Still can't get over how his texture looks. Their eyes are also super detailed. We did get that one like leaked behind the scene photo of Jim Henson's creature shop.  Next up, we got a closer shot of Bonnie who also looks fantastic, very, very happy. He's got an official guitar strap. I feel like that actually adds to the character. Something I never realized Bonnie needed but it makes him that much more of a rock star and I love him for it. Again, the super detailed bow is just a super amazing added touch to make these characters a lot more realistic and lifelike. Third poster might be one of my favorites, Chica with Mr. Cupcake, aka Carl. Something I didn't recognize immediately off the bat in the main poster is Chica's bib. It looks like it is very, very detailed. It might even have the same texture as FNAF One Chica. I wouldn't be shocked if Scott just gave Jim Henson company the actual texture but either way, it looks absolutely fantastic, very spot on. Chica's beak is obviously a bit more metallic. Texture going on there. It looks freaking amazing. Carl looks spot on. He looks so cute. I still can't get over how his candle actually glows. That looks awesome. And lastly, we have the character we saw the least of in that main poster, which is Foxy.  I cannot get over Foxy. He's definitely gonna be probably the most menacing out of the main four. I really hope he gets a good chase sequence in the film because I feel like if you're doing something with Foxy, it's gotta be a chase sequence. That's exactly what he does in the first game. But Jesus, man, he just looks so menacing. I cannot get over how Foxy looks. So that was a few extra posters but they did also show off an official website, which is something I wasn't expecting. It's not much. Right now it just has the official logo for the film. Of course, the release date. It has a save to calendar option, which is fantastic. A few of their socials down at the bottom. Though off to the side, it does have another thing for the reminder and also an official synopsis for the film. Most of this, I believe we have seen the film follows the troubled security guard as he begins working at Freddy Fazbear's Pizza. While spending his first night on the job, he realizes the night shift at Freddy's won't be so easy to make it through. Then you've got all the actors and the cast and the crew, Jim Henson's as well. Also off to the side here. So not too much new stuff going on with the website but it is very, very exciting to have an official website up and running. Ah, here we go, all right. I was wondering when they were gonna do this. So it looks like they're officially updating all the social media pages for the FNAF movie as well. If you remember, we saw this Twitter account and like a Facebook account as well as some other account, Instagram, that's right. But it just had the default universal logo, profile picture and banner. But it looks like they're switching that over now. And look at this, oh my gosh. Popping in one last time because the official Twitter account finally made a post. This is their first post. If you wanna follow it, I'll leave it linked down below. Obviously, it's pretty simple. Just got the poster saying, can you survive hashtag five nights at Freddy's in theaters and streaming on Peacock October 27. So definitely stay on the lookout for this Twitter account because I'd imagine they're gonna be posting a few more things in the coming months. And also just to end off this video, this is someone who actually works at the Jim Henson's Creature Company and they confirmed this is a shot of their actual animatronics they made. This is not a render, this is not CGI. That just goes to show how insanely well made these animatronics were. I mean, the YouTubers that got flown out to see the set said they looked one to one recreations from the original game and they were not fricking lying.  But frankly, that's gonna do it for this very quick FNAF news video. I just wanted to show off the poster, the brand new logo for the film FNAF. It looks so good. I fricking love everything about this poster. It's everything I had hoped for. So tell me what are your thoughts in the comments down below for this poster? Do you like it? Do you wish maybe they went for a different style instead of all the animatronics lined up like that one image all the FNAF journalists use? That's gonna do it for this video. Thank you all so much for watching and I'll see you all on the flip side. Goodbye.


Switch. You're perfect. Charles, do you have COVID? No, I have a cold. Can you explain that sneeze? I'm allergic to sneezing. Huh? Yeah. Every time I sneeze, it makes me sneeze. Dude, stop worrying. I don't have COVID. I can't have it. I'm always being careful. I should hope so. I never wear a mask. When someone coughs, I always stand in front of them, making sure that the people behind me don't get their germs. I very frequently smell people's breath. I always hang out at the test center. Oh, and if someone tests positive, I go visit them in quarantine, making sure that they are OK. So how can I have it? Charles, sure you don't have COVID. You got a dry cough, you got a fever. You look so tired. Yeah, but I haven't lost my taste. The taste is the main thing. I haven't lost my, I mean, this water. Is that water? It tastes great. Oh, did I tell you my girlfriend, the one I live with, she has COVID? What? Yeah, why didn't you tell me? I would have said no to us hanging out. Exactly. Still a cold. Yes, a cold bit. Oh, so I'm organizing this party at my place tonight. Come by. Usually I would, but parties are kind of risky right now. Like, I wouldn't want to get the virus. OK, two things. Number one, did I say I was going to invite other people? Number two, what if you already have the virus and you have no symptoms? You'll carry it. Yeah, but I wouldn't want to give it to people, right? Come here. Come here. If we get the virus, we make it onto the news. PR, ban, articles, consider it. Make your parents proud. Dude, you should really get yourself tested. You too. Why? I came into your room last night when you were sleeping.  Think of the news. Make your parents proud. Get tested. Yeah, I've just received my COVID results. Yeah, so it says positive, but that doesn't mean anything, right? You see, that depends on when you ask me the question because it doesn't stay in there forever. You ask me next month, I don't have it. You overthink everything these days. People overthink everything. There's a very specific piece of news targeted only at that guy watching the news for the purpose of this video. So that friend who kept telling you he did not have COVID has just died from it. His last words were, I don't have it. Wait, how did he get it? Charles, you've got to be more careful, like me. You're fine. Where did you go last night? I saw in your story, you went somewhere. Oh yeah, I was out. Out? With a small group of friends? How small?  No, homo. A small group of 12 friends? Just 12. On the story, it seemed like there were a lot more. Well, I was with my 12 friends, but the other 2,000 people, I didn't know them.  You went to the EDM concert last night? Yeah. I went there too. Why didn't you tell me? Oh dude, I lost my phone. I was at this one hugging tent and we were hugging each other from the fear of COVID-19. No, I can't have it. I was careful when that girl and I were sharing saliva. Let me call her. What's up? Hey, quick question. You don't have COVID, do you? No, I don't. Yes. But no COVID, right? No. Well, as long as you don't have COVID. We did it five times and you cried. As long as you don't have COVID, I said.


Fy fawr yn cymrydol i'r cymrydol yn siaradau cymrydol a fyddwn i'r gwrs gilydd ar yr ysgrifydd a fyddwn i'n gwybod i'n gwybod, sy'n meddwl o'r gwahanol i'r cymrydol, mae hynny'n gwybod, mae yw ymddoch yn gwneud o bod, yn ymddoch i'r cymrydol, i'r cymrydol, i'r cymrydol, i'r cymrydol, ond yr ymddoch yn cael ei ddweud. Cymru oedd y ffaith yw'r byw yn ystyried arweinio'r ffordd. Mae'r ffordd oedd ydych chi'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'r law. A oedd y law yn ddiddordeb yn ymgyrch i ddweud o'r rhain. Felly, yn ymgyrchau ar y law o'r ffawr o'r offensiaeth cyfnodol, y cysylltu ffawr yn ymgyrchol yn ymgyrchol, yn ymgyrchol o'r ffawr o'r consent, o ffawr o'r ffawr o'r ffawr o'r consent. For the offensive rape to be committed, we need a complainant who was not consenting to the sexual intercourse. So what do we do in a case where the victim says, or the alleged victim says, that she only consented because she was drunk and had she been sober she wouldn't have consented? What do we do with that as a matter of law? Should that mean that for the purposes of the law of rape she wasn't actually consenting to that intercourse? Would it make any difference to our evaluation of that situation if it was the defendant who had applied her with the alcohol perhaps deliberately to get her drunk hoping that he'd then be able to have intercourse with her? Another slightly different example, what if we have a defendant who has some sort of sexually transmitted disease which he or she hasn't disclosed to the sexual partner and that sexual partner consents to intercourse perhaps instigates the sexual encounter, subsequently discovers the sexually transmitted disease and says oh my goodness I would never have consented to that had I known about the sexually transmitted disease. Can we say in that situation that that complainant nevertheless consented to sex on that occasion? So that's just two I think really fascinating examples which I hope will give you some insight into some of the sorts of questions that we have to consider on the criminal law course. Thank you.


to throw phone to him or we didn't even have any shields at the time. And he made Giffin change the dynamics on that that that that moment. He approached, he came around, you saw part of a distorted part of the video for Channel 3 that we all saw. Then at this point I'm now a just resetting a command when it shots fire from Matt Nice calling that in. He came around, he did go down, he did come up and I was captured on a dash cam video of Corporal Nice's car clearly holding the gun in the direction of where Corporal Nicely and Inspector Welch were standing when our officer shot, he was already shot, shot him again, one shot and then it stopped the threat, the immediate threat. It is a horrible thing to see, it's a horrible thing to be part of and also the bouncing on him so there's no opportunity to grab anything else or whatever. You don't know what's going on, you don't know if there's another gun or a waistband or what have you. Later there was also a getaway driver and it was later arrested. So my point on that one that's what they, what the Suicide.org would refer to as a spontaneous suicide. The plan was to rob a bank that day and so we looked at so now in our department we have shields in every one of our cars because if we had to make an approach we could do it safe. There was no safe way to do that approach. I also did not, by giving the command to not approach, was not to precipitate something on our end. He's staying there, we've got communication with one person, our negotiator, let's just keep going. He did not give us the opportunity. He did not surrender. And I know, you know, on ski patrol, this was very hard. Thanks. Just to follow up on your statement that there haven't been any unjustified in the Grailbar area, where would you do people in the church at that time? According to them, there was never a time that anyone else except Woody threatened himself. So Attorney General justified it, but it was a difficult situation. Appreciate hearing how the recognition of people in crisis right now is a greater recognition of awareness. Thank you. Yeah, after we've considered opportunity, I just want to go over the rest of the VPA positions. So thank you all for having me here today. I believe I've submitted a pair of testimony specifically on age eight away, but I'll speak quickly to age 464 at the end as well. I just got some notes so you can just leave it up. And I think there's at least one slide that's just referenced in there that I'll kind of show you a visual so you can see as well. So thank you for the opportunity to come before you today to speak about these two pieces of legislation. In short, the ACLU of Vermont supports both pieces of legislation. I'll speak to age eight away first. So age eight away would create a statutory standard for the use of deadly force in Vermont. Vermont currently lacks a statutory standard. Well, at the same time, we do have a statutory standard for the use of less deadly force in the form of tasers. And so we would support instituting a statewide standard that says that it requires an officer to use deadly force. Only one is necessary. So this would be the necessary standard. As you know, recently adopted by the state of California. And the necessary standard established in age eight requires officers use other techniques and resources other than deadly force when recently safe and feasible to do so. Then also the bill also determines that the priority of deadly force can be used when decision and when, excuse me, sorry, misrepresent. So the bill requires that when determining the propriety of the use of deadly force, decision makers must consider the conduct leading up to the use of force. And so this bill is especially timely right now just because we've seen a consistent rise in the number of officer-involved shootings per year. So this is referenced in my testimony, but this is just a very simple graph. This is compiled by the Vermont State Police. It shows officer-involved shootings between both with the Vermont State Police and other state departments. So you'll see it's a pretty standard linear progression increasing over the last couple of years. There's been, I think, nearly as many shootings in the last decade as there are in the previous three decades. And if you look at 2019 compared to 1999, there's a fourfold thing. So we have been seeing an increase in officer-involved shootings and think that this would be a time to create a statewide standard for consistency. So another reason that this is something that we believe would be helpful is the number of folks that interact that are most often involved in these type of incidents are often people who have diminished capacity in some way. So it's individual, as Bill says, individuals with physical mental health, developmental, and intellectual disabilities are significantly more likely to be involved in these incidents as their disabilities may affect their ability to understand or comply with commands from law enforcement and officers. And the de-adoption of a necessary standard could help address this disparity by prioritizing the use of de-escalation tactics. And I think this is one place that as we listen to the testimony, this is a place where there's agreement between the ACLU and the law enforcement. We've heard from them many times that they are prioritizing de-escalation tactics. This is something they say they use in their training and we think that this Bill codifies those values. Importantly, the requirement that the force be necessary means that if de-escalation is possible, that the force is not necessary. It requires decision makers to examine whether the officer's escalated situations may have to use the force or fail to de-escalate it when it could have been reasonable to do so. So also another important aspect of H808 is that it creates a definition of imminent threat and that it's not merely a fear of future harm, but it's one that from appearances must be instantly confronted and addressed. So we think this creates some clear statutory standards which don't exist at this point in time and we support adopting this into law. And then when it comes to age 464, we are very supportive of better data collection around the use of force. Generally, the lack of data collection in the criminal justice system is something that is a very large problem that we've been trying to speak quite a bit about. I will say that actually law enforcement is providing probably some of the more comprehensive data around these things now, so in terms of police stops and other pieces of information, but I think this is one more piece of information that would be helpful to have. And as 464 speaks to the process of creating more training and programming in collaboration with other stakeholders, we think that that collaborative approach is something that could be helpful. It sounds like something like you were describing in your comments earlier and think that that could be helpful to get those different perspectives. So we would support that legislation. So that is our testimony today and I'd be happy to take any questions. I've heard the reference to this California model a couple of times that they just implemented. Why would we point to that as an example of success when there's no data? We have absolutely no idea how it's going to turn out. Couldn't that wind up forced than what we've been dealing with? Well we think that bill says and we think that this bill says that deadly force would only be used when necessary and that's why we're supportive of it. I know that is a bill that as passed, I believe, law enforcement originally objected to it. They withdrew their objection, they didn't throw it at least support it. They understand there's a difference and I think working in this building you all understand there's there's difference between that and but it is one that it says deadly force was only going to be used when necessary and we support that. So is it the ACI use position now that deadly force has been used when it wasn't justified? Well I think as you heard that under the current standards that there are times that we have not seen any of these shootings been declared unjustified but going forward we're looking prospectively. You know this is what this legislation will do. It's not going to go re-litigate anything that happened in the past. It's going to say prospectively this is the standard we'd like to see used when officers are deciding to use deadly force. I'm trying to restrain myself but you gave me an opening. I did. I can also go to Marsha. It's just so unusual that you're not first out of the game. It's Friday. Thank you for your testimony. One of the things on 808 in the California language that was real clear to me was from law enforcement's testimony the other day was words matter. So I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a law enforcement official. I'm a legislator so I get the help. Why is law enforcement? I mean it was very clear that words matter. I heard that from the commissioner. I heard that from the hallways afterwards and I heard it from the training deputy director whatever drew at the place of academy. It was very clear what changes with the California. Why is this the new model we should embrace? Well I mean 100% agree that words matter. I think that is something that probably everyone here holds very very dear and when looking at this one I'll say we don't have a statutory standard right now. So those words are not on paper in statute and in terms of those words we believe that necessary is the correct standard. I think that's something that people can agree on and by doing that implementing that standard it does prioritize the use of deescalation in these interactions and that is something that we're not saying that law enforcement is not doing but it sets that standard in statute. About 15 minutes. So in the order that they ask for permission you can jump right in and then we will get to Beth in a moment. My name is Stephen Wettaker from Montpelier. I want to call your attention to overlap. I'm specifically speaking in memory of Mark Johnson which is the most recent shooting in Montpelier that you heard about. We have had no shootings and we have two shootings in as many years and both of which involve a mentally distressed individual both of which involved what appeared to be a dangerous firearm. So I think we need to be very careful in recognizing that justified is a term subject to interpretation. I would encourage all to look at watch the video is disturbing as it is watch the video of the Mark Johnson shooting last August. Here's a mentally distressed person who had locked himself out of his own building trying to get back in with a knife allegedly I haven't there are some public records overlaps but I'll speak to here. I've not seen all the records that are I need to see on this. He flees he's apprehended or challenged on the bridge by the only two officers and the crews are on he attempts twice to jump into the river from either the south side of the Spring Street bridge or the north side of the Spring Street bridge instead of allowing him to jump into the river he might have broken a leg he might have gotten a little water in his lungs he would not be dead so instead our officer orders him down repeatedly you know and ends up putting two fragmentation rounds in it because we didn't have the 12 gauge beanbag shotgun in that cruiser if you've only got one cruiser on the road maybe that should be the one with the beanbag shotgun in it you know we could have waited this this was a this it appears to me and I'm not an expert on psychiatry that this appears to be an intentional suicide by cop a very distressed individual waving a toy pistol or a pellet pistol there the individual was known to the police department prior there may he may the police department might have known that he had a pellet pistol so there's a lot of abilities here that would have warranted to weight move slow de-escalate and instead we had two fragmentation rounds into his abdomen from a rifle you listen to the audio on the tape you realize that these people realize he couldn't hit the side of a barn from 20 yards he was that distressed and just waving a pellet pistol in the air so this the idea that this couldn't have waited on a mental health professional or waited on a backup cruiser with the beanbag shotgun or you know last resort take hit him in the leg you know but to basically kill someone unnecessarily who's facing a mental distress intending to get shot possibly is is unwarranted now there's a public records issue here and that I would ask the committee to consider clarifying that the independent investigation that would have been done by the Vermont State Police was undermined by a decision of our chief and I do respect our chief I see he's doing a tough spot here at the end of his career I want him to you know all do respect but there was a decision in the Burlington case where a judge ruled that the officer had the right to review the video before giving his statement that needs to be clarified because the state police warned the police department here to not let him review that video before we get his statement or even do a deposition I'm not privy to those communications but our chief overruled that and let him watch the video before he gave his statement so in effect we subverted independent investigation by the state police it would have done a lot to restore public confidence in this since then our city council has offered to hold a public forum and instead put five minutes on a number seven on an agenda and swept it under the route but pending public records requests for the affidavit that the state's attorney requested the state's attorney requested an affidavit from the chief it's been months and that still hasn't been produced our city council mayor city manager ignores appeals to the head of the agency on the public records appeal on this issue so we have a problem in the accountability the transparency and the undermining of public confidence so but the issue of whether or not a video of an incident should be withheld pending an investigation from the shooter uh it's clearly a public records issue that needs clarification uh possibly to avoid this ambiguity where a an independent investigation could be undermined yeah I'm gonna just cover my notes yeah the interpretation of a violent felonian you know when you've got a resident of an subsidized housing non-pillier housing authority you know trying to jimmy into a building that he lives in it's hard to characterize it may have been mischaracterized as a violent felony in progress so I would argue we don't have good policy I would support the bill requiring good policy be adopted to clarify the ability to restrain dealing with the video until the statements are made by an independent investigator it turns out the officer who did kill mark johnson unnecessarily in my opinion uh head prior uh in an incident of a teenager smoking pot broken a woman's ribs uh and then in a separate incident a distressed mentally distressed person snapped a guy's arm who was holding onto his wife who clearly understood and communicated that he was distressed the man died as a result so this is the third incident with this particular officer that should give us all pause thank you thank you wants to be on the record in support of a request from the vermont criminal justice training council and vermont police academy that was underway well before the bills were introduced here there is a a lot of well I think it's pretty universal support by all of law enforcement that we expand the basic training an additional four weeks and I think you'll hear from rick goth here I hope you do come in and sort of explain that to you a little bit more in depth you heard a little bit of it in that first hearing and we would support whatever this committee can do and this legislative body can do to support that appropriation and the second piece is he the academy is also going to be the criminal justice training council will also be asking to expand the reporting requirements under act 56 which I think was passed 2017 2017 I think later 2018 it requires that all law enforcement report to the criminal justice training council categories of misconduct and I think conduct b is a second report of unlawful force and my guess is or use of force not an awful force and law enforcement supports actually the expansion of that again something that they all agreed upon well before legislation came before this body so we would ask that this committee support that change I think it's a good idea so I wanted to get those two things on the record and also as you pay attention to the requests for the resources of the folks who are dealing with these community issues telling what they need to have better outcomes there's a difference between shit and county and the ability to share old resources when you're nearby Richmond near Williston near Burlington then in some of our more rural communities so I think it's worth paying attention to the disparate level of resources available last thing I just want to follow up some of the testimony around some use of force cases including the witty case it was actually general counsel of public safety and they did the investigation into that case you know no one in law enforcement jumps to a conclusion that use of force is justified and shouldn't until you complete an investigation because you can't properly make that determination until you undertake a real investigation you take a look at all of it and you finish it and then you have to look at it using what is the Vermont standard and has been a Vermont standard you're not standard-less in the state we operate under Graham DeConnor and the interesting thing about California and I'll just know that I'm not ready to get into California with you now but the interesting thing about California their problem was that they actually had a statutory standard it was outdated it was a constitution so the problem with codifying what you think is the standard today this is really comes from the constitution and the courts interpret it and you'll I'm sure representative Dan will will assist you this but you know courts are always examining this here in the second circuit it's under examination we are responding to that that information is in real time to law enforcement and then they make changes they update their training the bolting goes out and if it's standard or some interpretation gives them some guidance they act on it so I just want you to keep that in mind California had a unique reason for undertaking its effort the last piece of that puzzle is yeah law enforcement did object to it but they were in a legislative process as you all know when you're in legislative process sometimes you have to get to a point the process where you get something and you have to give something that support did not come at the beginning of the process it came after there was some back and forth and they were able to secure some language that made them feel a little bit more comfortable but I don't think it was the whole ask so I just want to keep that in mind and that's about as much as I wanted to share on that hopefully we can continue that conversation so quickly on your first part of your testimony you talked about the collection of information you referring to the type of force employed that's in 464 that goes to the we support that I advise the chair and I should put that on the record as well there's no objection from law enforcement fully support that data collection piece if you want to okay where are you in the second part we actually have not I have not looked at the rest of it because this is on a new model policy yeah four hours of training I think that we actually have a post basic I think drew touched upon this with post basic use of force training then is mandatory for all the law enforcement that's an additional block that they have to have that's already happening but we the organization and I think Tony touched upon it position in the wrong police association and I believe it was the testimony of commissioner charlie and I believe that's what you heard from your blooms these force training just director that it is not a good idea the legislative policy because policy is living reading document that is that is their their decision so at this time not supporting that piece of information about california actually comes off of their website it is the family to have a proper they have a process where they put information on the record in the senate senate public safety committees before on the bill they cite some history and specifically speak to the codification what they proceed to be an outdated and unconstitutional