Okay, thank you so welcome back and we are considering continuing our deliberation of each 145 enact relating to amending the standards for law enforcement force and continuing our testimony. And I like to invite I hope I get your name right Zachary has it from disability rights and excuse me if I did not pronounce your name correctly. Welcome. I think we've met you before. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for inviting me just for the record. My name is Zachary. How's it close on the name there is a unique one. I'm a staff attorney at disability rights for month. And again, thank you so much for, for inviting me to come and talk to you this morning and hopefully I can help answer any questions that you have. Before I sort of get into my testimony of this bill specifically just a little background information on disability rights for month and just generally what we do for your knowledge. So we are the protection advocacy organization in Vermont. Our role under that is to protect and advocate for the rights of people with disabilities or work in this area is very broad, including addressing abuse and neglect in a number of situations, including care facilities prisons in the community, including law enforcement uses of force. We also deal with issues of discrimination and housing employment and other areas as well. We also represent victims of crimes in that situation as well so very broad, broad work that we do. We're also the Vermont mental health ombudsman as well. And also for your information I included a report that we produced last year wrongly confined, which looks at Vermont's current health care system community health care system. And that's relevant sort of for your knowledge in terms of, you know, situating this bill of police law enforcement into the larger context of what is going on in the community for people with disabilities. And really identifying that it is a work with a national expert on that and really is a knee in Vermont for a more robust community system of care. Law enforcement and people with disabilities is something that disability rights for month has been working on for a long time. We were involved with Act 80 and the development of law enforcement training on working with people with disabilities. We're also involved in the development of the statewide and taser policy and practices, which the statute on that is 20 vs a 23 67, which I'll mention later because I think that's relevant in terms of your work on this bill as well. We also work with and collaborate with various agencies including departmental health on these issues, as well as designated designated agencies which are the community, community care agencies on this issue of law enforcement and people with disabilities. And we also work with and at times represents individuals who have been harmed by use of force so we're very involved in this issue on many levels. The reason that this is so important for people with disabilities is that people with disabilities are disproportionately impacted by by law enforcement. Nationally, about one in 20 encounters of law enforcement are with people with disabilities, particularly mental illness. Most of those encounters are individuals in some sort of crisis or in some sort of low level misdemeanor potential activity, or sort of minor nuisance behavior sorts of things. At the same time, one studies found that people with disabilities, particularly mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement. So just again, people with disabilities are disproportionately impacted involved with law enforcement and have a higher risk of use of force being done to them and being potentially legal. And so our comments really on this bill is that we think that there should be more in the bill about working with and serving people with disabilities. And under the Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations have to be provided to people with disabilities and that includes law enforcement providing reasonable accommodations. And we think that this bill would be stronger, would benefit from some language in it that sort of makes those standards clear and concise for law enforcement guidance. And so we provided some redlined edits to as a, you know, some suggestions of ways to possibly incorporate those standards from the ADA and Vermont Fair Housing Public Accommodations Act into this bill. And I can go back to the Taser law. If you take a look at that statute, that requires officers to document what they, you know, what they understood about an individual's disability and how they tried to accommodate and deescalate the situation. And so that can be something to look at as sort of guidance and drafting this bill and how to incorporate that here as well. And the idea being that officers have to be cognizant of individuals' disability and then accommodate that as well. Can I just interrupt real quick? Could you direct me to that provision again for the Taser law? You mentioned it earlier, but I missed it when you said that. Sure, no problem. That is, let me see if I can find it. So that is 20 VSA 2367. Thanks. Of course. Yeah, so with that, I'll sort of open up, try to answer any questions you have. I'll just also mention sort of, you know, that other comments that have been made in terms of creating a private right of action and qualify immunity. We support those, those comments as well. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. Thank you. And I appreciate, excuse me, I appreciate your testimony and it's nice to meet you this first time you've appeared here before. So thank you. Not seeing any hands at this time. Martin. Yeah, I have. I've looked at the language that you did propose. And we did look in quite a bit last year, as far as really the known or should have known type standard and for various reasons landed on the, you know, the known standard but, but I guess I have a question or with respect to the the second component, or the second part of what have provided which is what the officer should do. If they know of a subjects impairment. It seems to me maybe this is more of a comment but I just want to make the comment and have you respond to it if you wish. The main out there is exactly the kind of thing that should be part of the policy that law enforcement is using to put our standards into place. So we've really been trying to do a balance of what should be in the statutory standards, directing law enforcement on a higher level with the understanding. This is something we had in the in the S 119 that pass requiring them to report back to us on the policy, but allowing the flexibility for the law enforcement in their expertise to put into place the details of far as far as how to implement that policy. And it would seem that the way to get appropriate professional and peer assistance and the like is absolutely something that should be part of that policy absolutely should be something that law enforcement should do. And I feel if we're putting it in the statute, we may be actually restricting or limiting the different things that we would want to law enforcement in their development of the policy to lay out as options to deal with these situations so we purposely tried to keep it flexible relatively broad but making clear that law enforcement has to take that into account. I love that made sense but if you could comment on that but I just wanted to let you know the the purpose behind this or what we're trying to accomplish with this. And I guess one of the questions a follow up question is, is, have you been working with the Department of Public Safety and their efforts to put that policy into place to make sure that something like this is in the policy. I appreciate those comments and the broader picture for what all is happening here. Yeah, you know, again, we just made these as some some suggestions and I think your comment about, you know, wanting to see these things in the policy is great and maybe maybe the solution that would be some sort of some sort of language in the bill, you know, directing the policy to include, you know, guidance and a specific direction along these lines. So maybe, you know, the language would be a little broader but the idea of being something about providing, you know, accommodation for people with disabilities and I was likely one way to address this. There's your question. Yeah, yeah, and let me just as a follow up is, I think the intent of the committee and in conjunction with government operations committee is to see what comes out of this policy making process of the Vermont State Police and the rest of law enforcement in the state. And if it's lacking, and we would look to people like you as well, if it's lacking we want to understand that and perhaps we then have to put more into statute. And this could be somewhat of an iterative process but we are very much want to be able to defer to law enforcement to put these kind of operationalizing aspects into into effect. If, if things like this are missing, then that's something that I, at least I would want to assuming that I continue in my legislative role in the future would want to definitely look at and make sure that the policy really is sufficient. So there is this balance right now I don't know that we need to do what you're suggesting at this point, because I'm sending a message right now and we have been sending this message on this bill that we're giving you law enforcement the chance to put those policies in place that are sufficient to address the situation. If that's not the case we want to hear from you and others in the community and ourselves that that that did not happen. I appreciate that comment as well and sort of answer your earlier question about us working with the Department of Public Safety. You know I did look at the proposed policy and my office proposed issues and comments on that as well. And we're certainly available to to consult however we can be helpful. Again for both the committee and for Department of Public Safety. So I think that, you know, again in terms of having language, you know, specifically more directing on how the policy, some things that the policy might want to include about how to interact with people with disabilities. So I hear what you're suggesting in terms of you guys go back and you know the legislature go back and fix it later. Just the one concern I'll raise on that is that that's takes time and there's a recipe with disabilities could be harmed in the meantime and, you know, sort of striking that balance of providing direction but not too much specifics is difficult to work out on. So it can be a little bit more direction on that I think that would be that would be helpful. Appreciate thanks. Yeah, thank you appreciate that. It's helpful. Anybody else. Okay, that's seeing any other questions from the committee thank you thank you very much really appreciate you being here today and the documents that are that are posted thank you. Well, Walter White. Good morning. Welcome. I'm coming. Okay. There you are. Good morning. Good morning.   People who've been labeled or diagnosed with with mental illnesses. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this bill.  That's fine. Thank you. I'll try I'll try it if it persists I'll just turn it also won't be as distracting. I actually very much like. Any if not all of the proposed amendments to this H 145. I think the definition of choke hold is much improved. I like that it has been renamed. So it now really actually reflects that it's not a prohibited restraint because apparently it's the attention of this committee to allow choke holds and limited circumstances. I also think you sufficiently eliminated a lot of the proof problems that I discussed in my last time I testified with the earlier definition. I appreciate that you've eliminated the need for intent to cause bodily injury, or the result of in the definition of a choke hold, because as I tried to convey choke holds have now become a form of terror in and of themselves for many black Americans, regardless of whether they cause kind of a physical bodily injury. And so I very much support the direction of this of this new definition. I also greatly appreciate the elimination of the word bystander from the totality of the circumstances definition, because I believe, even if bystander is implicit in the totality of the circumstances definition without it. It's really important that that word bystander not appear in the language because to do so it signals to a court that somehow this legislative body had determined that there actually could be an instance where bystander could justify the use of force against a word party. And because this legislature really has not done so I appreciate the removal of the word bystander from that definition. And I also appreciate the removal of the words without the benefit of hindsight for all the reasons I talked before. I would suggest though that when we move down to its page five Subdivision C six, which currently reads a law enforcement officer shall not use a choke hold on a person unless lethal force is justified pursuant to subdivision C one of this section. I suggest that you substitute the word deadly for lethal, because this is the first time the word lethal has appeared in the bill, and it's not defined. And the word that you have used throughout the bill to date is deadly force. And so just for the sake of consistency. I would suggest that you can you be consistent and use the phrase deadly force anytime you're referring to lethal force. And then I also have a question and perhaps a suggestion about your referencing referencing subdivision C one of this section. It seems to me that you haven't referenced all of the sections that are not sure whether it's it's also important to reference, for example, C two and C three and C four, because, you know, C, C, C three and four. You can actually qualify C one and C one. And so it's just actually a question in my mind, whether a court will assume because you've only referenced C one, whether you meant to not incorporate also the restrictions and limitations of C three and C four. Moving on to C seven. A law enforcement officer has a duty to intervene when the officer observes another officer using a chokehold on a person. Again, I wonder here if you need to include the exception that you've carved out. So I don't think you're going to be asking a law enforcement officer to intervene when a when a fellow officer is using a chokehold when deadly forces justify. So the question is, do you need to incorporate maybe need to add an offer law enforcement officer has a duty to intervene when the officer observes another officer using a chokehold on a person, and then add unless lethal force is justified, pursuant to sex subdivision C one three, four of the section. Just a question. Can we move on on that if I could, Maxine. So so on that yeah I pondered that as well as far as whether to have that language. And this is something I'd certainly want to hear from law enforcement is as well but it seems in a situation where even when lethal forces is justified deadly force like I'll keep saying deadly I agree that with that change to change lethal to deadly but when deadly force is justified and somebody is using a chokehold that other law enforcement, even in that situation should presumably be intervening. I would think I mean if their person is grappling and on the ground and is using a chokehold, presumably the law enforcement officer is going to be intervening to assist with that situation. Anyway, that was my thinking but this is certainly probably more a question for law enforcement and how they run into these situations. So just want to know if you have a comment on that or not. Yeah, I was thinking similarly that you would see you might be still expecting law enforcement to kind of help out because if a fellow officer is in trouble to the point where they're using that that they would be intervening but I don't know if they would be intervening to stop the law enforcement officer to stop using a chokehold I think they would be intervening to assist the officer in helping the officer kind of save their life so you know I'm like we'll clear clarity in legislation and, and I really like the legislators intent to be really clear in legislation and so I just raise the issue. So that I can hear some you know we can all hear some discussion about it and we can all be on the same page about it. I'm really interested in what law enforcement would have to say about that. Excuse me, Selena has her hand up. Oh, yes. And you I'm sorry I had to respond something on the side for a moment so you may have already. You may have already shared some information about this just in your last statement that I missed and I apologize if that's true but I'm. I have a more general question just about subsection C. I mean I'm sorry subsection six here and just curious to hear your general thoughts on the direction of carving out this kind of exception for the use of chokehold and whether or not that's good policy direction for us to go. I would have a hard time voting in favor of an exception if I were a legislator I probably would not vote for in favor of an exception to the chokehold, but at the same time I'm, I'm, I'm thinking myself as a fair minded and reasonable person and if a law enforcement officer were his life, his or her life were in jeopardy. I would think the law enforcement officer could do anything to save their life.  But in terms of carving out that exception and statute, I would not do it, I would allow the justifiable homicide statute to do that work. And then I would avoid a situation that I think it was representative. Not raised, which is also a problem that I have with the statute where you're saying you're not going to teach it but you're allowed to use it. That to me is, it's just that it's really a conflict that can't be resolved. It's just something I, you can't really resolve it right I mean, if you have any kind of intellectual integrity. I don't think you can say you can use a chokehold but we're not going to teach you how to use it. I would allow the justifiable homicide statute to do the work and I would not put something in statute that would allow you to use a chokehold. And that's really, you know, based on my, you know, feelings about chokeholds, the place chokeholds have come to occupy in our society, the terror I feel. And that I know other black people feel the way I've seen chokeholds reenacted at Black Lives Matter protests. The ways I know that, you know, even kind of walking the rail trail near my house and encountering a person who wants to terrify me. And they will borrow these types of incidents from, which are now part of popular culture, and just uttering the words right so just because of the place chokeholds old for me. I would not codify their use, but at the same time, I would not penalize an officer who was on trial for using a chokehold to save his or her life. I would, I would likely vote, you know, to acquit based on justifiable homicide statute. So those are my feelings. That is really helpful. Thank you. And so I mean, I think that pretty much concludes my testimony on on the on the proposed changes. I would like to just because he immediately preceded me. I think that's exactly how it's proposed amendment. It's something that freedom is not in favor of. I we much prefer the language that's in the statute. I think that the proposal is well meaning, but it's also actually more narrow than what's already in the statute, and doesn't really get at what what we're what this language was. For in my mind is trying to get at so. And I'm talking again about B five where if a law enforcement officer knows that a subject's conduct is due to a mental health condition, etc. They have to take that to account. The change that Mr. Hose it has has proposed is narrower because he's conflating disability with, for example, mental illness mental illness does not always result in a disability. You know, I have been diagnosed with a severe mental illness. I don't consider myself disabled. And so, and the ADA only protects people who are disabled. And so be five is broader than that be five protects anybody whose conduct is based on a mental health condition, or whatever, and so it's broader. The other thing is, I agree with representative alone that what what Mr. Hose it is proposing is more appropriate and policy. I also think the American disability with disabilities act does a lot of the work here we don't need to adopt that into this use of force statute remember this is a use of force statute this is not. And only a use of force statute. And I also think as a person who's, you know, all too familiar with the mental health system that it's not always helpful to call in professional assistance. And that has been just as harmful as law enforcement. In many regards and so, while melt well meaning. I think it's not helpful to the, certainly to the, to the people who I represent my constituents and that freedom, who are not all who are not all disabled, but who may very well have a run in with the police officer, because they might be experiencing an episode episode of psychosis or because of diabetic coma whatever. I think the language that's currently in the bill this is much broader and much to the point in terms of use of force. So that concludes my testimony. Thank you again. Thank you thank you so much will always always appreciate your, your input and your testimony I do see some hands. Gonna call on coach Martin I know your hand was up first but we haven't heard from coach yet today. Good morning. I'd like to thank the witnesses for their testimony this morning will do. And Mr hosick. I went back to my notes. From our original discussions on s 119 and then a year and a half ago, when we heard from drew bloom, who is the chief instructor at the police academy. He said succinctly. He does not teach Chocos. And he has not taught them. And I knew that was the case but I went back to my notes. And when we were discussing this back. When we did s 119. He came in and testified. And he also testified to a joint committee. At the beginning of the biennium the last biennium. That madam chair and her counterpart. You got put on mute again coach. Sorry, I like I said I had two kittens. The heat when he offered that testimony. In order to help the new members of the committee, maybe we could request that he returned just to reiterate the protocol for training at the academy. Thank you. Thank you, coach. Martin. Yeah, thank you, will I want you to go back to look at the choke hold definition and I had a question on that. Do you think that this covers or if we might need some other language, a situation where law enforcement officer is using a baton to have a choke hold I mean that's not necessarily part of the law enforcement officers body. I wondered if we need to make somehow clear that it can either be the body or some piece of equipment that the law enforcement officer might have that he's, he or she is using to, to limit the person's breathing or blood flow. Yeah, that's a good point. I think in order to be complete. I guess you would have to say. Yeah, I think I would agree that as that this statute would not prohibit a law enforcement officer from using a baton or another instrument to limit the person's bleeding or blood flow. All right, so so I guess I'll ask Bryn to maybe look and try to figure out what kind of language might be useful or is it just a matter of saying to law enforcement officers body or equipment or you know something like that but we can try Well, you know, a court would say a court who was trying to find that it was a choke hold even with the baton would say if the police officer holding the baton and it becomes part of their body. I can see a court saying that. But you know there's always that does create some wiggle room. And I don't think there's any way for a police officer to to to use equipment that they're not holding right in their hands or I guess, you know, Bryn I mean I do you have any I see you jumped back onto the screen do you have any input on this. I think that the definition of prohibited restraint. There was quite a bit of conversation in the Senate about that when they were crafting the original prohibited restraint definition. So the use of any maneuver, I think is a little bit broader. There may be a way to sort of combine the two definitions to broaden it to include the use of any maneuver that doesn't necessarily restrict it to a body part. I can work on that if the committee wants me to. Yeah, I certainly think we should look at that alternative language because yeah we don't want to the intent was not to narrow from what we had before in the Senate as far as the maneuver language. Alright, thanks. And perhaps law enforcement could comment on that as well when they, when they testify. Thank you. Any other questions from committee members. Again, will the thank you so much. So appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Okay I'm going to go a little bit out of order. I'm going to call on. Thank you. I appreciate being. Yeah, thank you. I'm going to call on majoring with Jonas now. Thank you. Thanks Madam chair. Can you hear me all right. Absolutely. Good morning. Welcome. I'm Ingrid Jonas for the record I'm a major division commander with a Vermont State police. This is actually the first time I've been here with y'all to discuss this so I appreciate the invitation to come here and comment on the bill. And also want to know, as others have mentioned the thoughtfulness of the work going into this to amend standards for police use of force, all of you witnesses and members of the committee involved in the process seem to really share overarching goals of wanting policy that we can be proud of in Vermont and which helps build trust clarity and improve our police capability and training. Just briefly I feel like the work is about optimizing safety and dignity and ensuring that officers in Vermont approach the very circumstances to which we're called with the appropriate care and concern the people. It feels like it's about slowing things down whenever that is possible for us and reducing the instances where police ourselves create situations that result in the use of force. And I want to be clear that we share in these goals, reducing the frequency and severity of uses of force is in everyone's best interest. It's very important to us that as we continue this important work we keep at the forefront that policy must be readily understood by every officer in Vermont and must lend itself to the development of effective training and be realistic. We in the police community have been fortunate to have Jen Morrison, although she was unable to be here today but she's been at the helm for us in this process and I just want to recognize her leadership. She's really pulled us together, state police, the chiefs, the sheriffs, the police association, troopers association and I believe we're speaking with one voice and support the improvements that she's been articulating to you and the committee in her prior testimony. Drilling down into the specifics of this latest draft, we've reviewed it and I have a some bullet points that I just want to mention for the record so we have no objection to changing the term from prohibited restraint to choke hold. We do offer two suggestions to improve the proposed definition and you started to speak of it a moment ago. First, we feel the definition should be broader than just actions that involve the placement of any part of law enforcement officers body on or around a person's neck. That wording does not include scenarios where an officer might come up from behind a person and use, as you mentioned a baton to press against their neck. It doesn't contemplate an officer intentionally using a person's clothing or say a scarf against them to strangle them. So we recommend adjusting the language accordingly. Second, we feel the definition of choke hold should include intention on the part of the officer to limit the person's breathing or blood flow. And we feel that way because there are times during physical instances, particularly on the ground or when grappling with someone who might be trying to evade custody arrest or detention. When a part of our body could be against or around a person's neck without the intention of placing the person into what is effectively a choke hold. Additionally, as written this definition doesn't account for like a hit or a strike that misses its intended mark during a struggle and causes the person momentary difficulty in breathing. Number two, we support the addition of section C six which clarifies that a choke hold is permissible when legal force is warranted. Number three, we know that the definition of totality of the circumstances has now omitted the word by standards. Based on the testimony of others and statements by the author of this S 119 representative alone, we will trust that any actions by a bystander that are significant enough to change an officer's course of action would be considered as part of the totality of the circumstances. The fourth item is we've noted that the most recent draft has omitted two of the primary language additions that we had requested, specifically the law enforcement community asked that, but without the benefit of hindsight, be added to be for, and that section B five be appended to start with to the extent feasible or when feasible. The testimony that we heard about those in addition to comments from the author and legislative council consistently state that the addition of these words don't change anything. They're unnecessary or redundant. And so we want to be on the record with this committee that we believe these words do matter and we feel they are necessary. I'm just joining on this from Jen Morrison and I won't take up more committee time but want to be clear that the addition of these phrases is a top priority for the law enforcement community. The fifth and final item is that this the joint team of DPS and the Vermont League of Cities and Towns policy and legal staff have completed their review of all feedback received to date on the draft use of force policy as posted in December. The group is anxious to move forward with a second draft and look, and they look forward to seeing this bill move along so that we can understand the legislative mandates that form the framework for the statewide policy. We obviously cannot develop training until we have policy and we cannot finalize policy until we have legislation. So with all of that in mind, we request a pushback of the implementation date for section one, the September 1 of 2021. I think that summarizes my comments and the bullet points we wanted to make for the record. So thank you all. Thank you very much. I appreciate that and I don't know if you have submitted your bullet points to testimony but if you are able to. I think that would be helpful if that does work for you. Certainly. Great. Thanks. Martin, see your hand up. Yeah, a couple questions but just one real quick statement regarding those two changes on subsection four and five just to just to be clear. I would say that they are redundant at best, and actually can be confusing those those two additions so I just want to make it clear it's not just a matter of thinking that those are surplus each or redundant language I think it does add confusion so putting that aside, there's no question there the questions I have two questions. One is with respect to the C seven as far as the, the duty to intervene and you probably heard the discussion between will the white me as far as whether that should specifically state that unless deadly force is justified, or or is this a way to get that if there's a chokehold used, even if deadly force is justified that there should be intervention. You know, I, I would want to, I guess contemplate that more I feel like if, if something as severe as a lethal for a lethal force deadly force maneuver is justified warranted in a situation. I don't cognitively understand where intervening fits in, do you understand like, I don't, I haven't contemplated it to the extent you might need me to but intervening when there is such a degree of force required that lethal or deadly force is being applied. I don't compute about intervening in that. I do believe that Morrison offered language that would have done just what we've talked about and what we talked about so the other question I have is, there's a question about training. It was my understanding that that training does not include training on chokeholds is that is that correct and how long has that been the case. Yeah, so my understanding of training at the Vermont police academy is similar to what Representative Christie mentioned that essentially, it's not referred to as chokeholds is referred to as I'm trying to find the right I'm sorry but these maneuvers were taught in such a way to help an officer understand how to get out from such a type of lethal force being used against them a vast vascular neck restraint. But those maneuvers have not been taught at the Vermont police academy for quite some time. But thank you. Okay. Good morning. When did you say. When did you say the date of for this to go into effect. You wanted or you thought you are requested September 1. And just refresh me how long is pull the officers training. The basic Academy of 16 weeks. Thank you for now. You're welcome. Anybody else and let's see their hands for committee. Great. Thank you. Appreciate your question. I thank you so much. Okay, how about Chief Burke, please. South Burlington. Morning Madam chair. Thank you again this morning. I appreciate your time and careful thoughtful and thought provoking testimony that's been given to be very succinct as major Joan has eloquently stated the entire Vermont law enforcement community is on board with the reform that this committee, our communities and our profession are striving for. I think that everything has been well stated here this morning. The only thing from the perspective of the Vermont chiefs that I'd like to highlight is the intent of choke hold. And when you look at and investigate other crimes, assaults, things of that nature, those are specific intent crimes. And I don't feel as though that that is clear in this statute. And given the mechanics of how force encounters evolve. Oftentimes there would be periods in which a portion of the officers body may come into contact with a neck, a torso and may cause. A lateral restraint without the intent of doing so. So I think that needs to be further deliberated. And when you're doing so, just please reflect on the number of hours of testimony that have been given on a topic that our officers need to critically evaluate and execute in the street in seconds. So, this is really hard work, and we need to distill it down so we can train our officers to have the outcomes that Vermonters want. But please keep in mind that these incidents do occur in seconds. So again, thanks for your time. I appreciate it. Happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony. Martin. Yeah, thank you, chief. So, with respect to the intent language, it would seem to me this is just a comment that I'm going to just open up for you to comment on or others. There's two places we have the definition of chokehold and frankly, I think having the definition just talk about the maneuver is what's critical there. It's when we get into. Well, what is the result of the use of a chokehold. And right now, if a chokehold is used and it's not in a lethal force situation. Then, then one could look at, you know, the disciplinary proceedings primarily, if it results in death that that really is goes to the offense that was created and and it seems to be there where intent might that that's the proper place in my view as far as whether to have intent or not and I look at it and we do not have an intention there it is if, if a chokehold is used, and it results in serious injury or death. There's not an intent factor there. If, if any place and I'm that that's presumably where it should go, not not just for a definition of chokehold so maybe there wasn't a question there I apologize but you're welcome to comment on what I just stated. No, thank you. Thank you Martin. I follow your logic and I think that's the appropriate way to approach this. You know also just highlighting what was already talked about in the definition to make sure that is captured there fully what what the intent of this legislation is but the intent of applying a chokehold needs to be addressed in the latter portion portion of the statute, the actual force portion of the statute. Thank you. Ken. This is probably already been talked about. Do we know how many times a chokehold is actually been used in Vermont. Is that, is that something that's tracked when an officer is giving a report or anything. So all all Vermont law enforcement agencies that have a use of force policy that I'm aware of have a use of force reporting component. There is not unfortunately a centralized database for this. I've worked at two agencies since the advent of lateral neck restraints in law enforcement and I believe I can recall one time in one instance. It was greater than a decade ago where a lateral neck restraint was used in the field. Do you know if we've had any deaths in Vermont, because of the chokehold. I am not aware of any fatal outcomes related to lateral neck restraints in the state of Vermont. Any idea how many injuries because of it. No sir. Thank you. Anybody else can ask another question. Absolutely. Do you think 16 weeks of training at the academy is sufficient for law enforcement in Vermont. Are they doing it. Doing their job. I think the Vermont criminal justice training council and the staff at the Vermont police academy are doing an amazing job with that 16 weeks. This profession has changed a great deal since my time at the police academy, which was 26 years ago. You know, in terms of what is needed in for added education in time. I think that's really tough to judge I feel as though that we're against the rev limiter and that the academy is going to have to contemplate extensions. Another careful metric that we look at are the duration of our field training programs. So, just by way of example, it's South Brenton PD once you leave the academy, then you come back to us and you are in a 16 week field training program where you ride with upwards of four senior trained officers to actually learn how to apply your trade in the field. And those are things that we're always balancing and of course, you know, even meaningful legislation like this will lead to increased training times both at the recruit level. And then now at the in service level to ensure that officers are staying contemporary and all practices and discipline. I think there's a whole other conversation about our involvement in response to those suffering in crisis situations where we need to as a society begin to really take this apart. We tend to really focus on the incident, and we're not looking left of that incident to where the gaps in community based resources exist that allow folks to spin at a control to where they become a danger to themselves or others. And then from from a passionate place of wanting to serve a community and leave all residents safely and with their dignity. I really wish we could focus on left of the incident and try to figure out what gaps exist in terms of mental health services that are community based substance use services that are community based and other things that those subject matter experts can give valuable insight to. Thank you. So are we seeing in the last year or so are we having a harder time recruiting people to go into law enforcement field. The raw numbers are really low. I will say that we used to see hundreds of applications for one position. In 2014 a lot's changed in the profession, and the economy's been fairly decent. And when the economy's fairly decent, we don't see a lot of people running to police as a career. But what I do see are recruits that we hire now that understand that policing is a service. They understand some of the struggles that professions had and want to be part of the reform moving forward. Good to hear. Thank you. That's it for now. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else committee. Okay, great. As always, thank you very much, Chief Burke. Thank you man appreciate it. Good to see you. Okay. How about Falco Schilling ACLU next please. Hello and welcome everyone. Thank you for having me here today my name is Falco Schilling and the advocacy director for the ACLU of Vermont. So I think my, my comments today are going to be, in fact, quite short in looking at the proposed changes to H 145. We basically, we want to say one we really appreciate in particular the change to be for the elimination of the previously added language without the benefit of hindsight. So that was one of our biggest concerns with this bill as it was introduced. So we are fine. We really appreciate that change and think it is important because it did add in our perspective. It's some confusion in terms of the court's scope of inquiry and feel that that was actually captured in the totality of the circumstances as previously discussed. So that is something we greatly appreciate. The change to choke hold is one that we are fine with that we also will note that the issues that represent the lawn raised earlier and that there might be a need to slightly refine this further. So appreciate that. And looking throughout the statute. Yeah, basically we support these changes as was introduced to the committee today, and have no objection to them. So I think that's basically our testimony on the proposed changes to 145 that were shared today. Great. Thank you. Selena. Yeah, I just I'm can I ask the same question that I asked of well the white earlier just how you feel about carving out that exception on the choke hold and kind of what message that it tends to do that versus rely on the justifiable homicide statute. So I think I remember the question I'll do my best to answer it and if I miss anything please, please correct me. But in terms of the use of a choke hold in a situation where deadly force would be available to an officer we think that that should be included as a justifiable defense and understand that the solely relying on the justifiable justifiable homicide statute would require that there was a homicide to use that defense. So we do not object to carving that out and making that more explicit, in part because we would want to see if this is a form of sometimes less deadly force that maybe a firearm or another situation, another type of force that could be used. So I think that's appropriate and making that more clear. So we don't have an objection to that and then I believe the other question that was discussed earlier is the component around training and the prohibition on using this sort of training within the the police academy and we're supportive of that as folks have mentioned earlier that is not something that's currently happening this training is not currently happening within law enforcement and putting that prohibition would not change any practices. And we heard testimony before that there was a concern that allowing that training to continue might mean that it is more likely to be used. So basically what the way how we see this and how we see this law currently constructed will allow a law enforcement officer to use some sort of, you know choke hold on any situation where deadly force might otherwise be necessary. You know this is a situation that might be grappling for their life. And so think it's appropriate to not be training on that but to make that more explicit when that defense could be used. Thank you for giving you time to take notes and see if you had any follow up or no. That's helpful. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Questions from other committee members. Okay. I'm not seeing any. Thank you. Thank you appreciate your testimony. Thank you and happy to add anything more if there's any more questions. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. See, chief Pete, please. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning members of the committee. Legislation is a privilege and an honor to be here. Thank you very much again for this opportunity. If I may, I would just again, echo Chief Burke and major Jonas's testimony. I would like to especially to to re reinforce that the law enforcement community in Vermont is definitely behind this. We want to make sure that we we we emerge with more trust and improved trust from our communities. And that we ensure accountability upon ourselves, our organizations and our profession. So, I think, you know, we're here and we want to make sure that we, you know, that we definitely partner in this conversation. To meet with the spirit and the intent of everything that's going on. I would say that in listening to some of the conversations in the testimony. There was the incident that was brought up about using batons or or the potential force for scarves being a restricting airway. The committee would like us to to go back and to look at that or to probably bring up some suggestions or ideas regarding suggested language language. We can definitely consult with our legal folks and with each other and bring something back that may be a good starting point or a decent starting point for the committee. We want to again echo the issues of intent and feasibility that that they are important to us, because we are dealing with those, those specific issues and relating relating to the law. The fourth point would would be in kind of looking at some of the things that Chief Burke had mentioned. I think that there's so many what if situations and scenarios and the hard work that you all have been doing. It's an enviable, but because this you have to look at so many different angles. So you guys are doing a tremendous amount of work, well needed work. But we also need to focus not necessarily on specific incidences. Don't lose sight of the intent of what these types of bills are so so rather than looking at, you know, that we should definitely mention choke holds and prohibitive neck restraints, because this is what we've seen this was this was something that was really that should not have happened. And we need to make that clear and we need to send that message out there but we also need to look at not what type of force was applied but rather the intent of that application because tomorrow there may be an incident that someone or law enforcement officer did not use a choke hold but use something else that may have seriously injured or killed someone and whether they may have been justified in doing it or not. So, there are going to be so many circumstances and so many situations that I think that we also need to, you know, make sure that we understand that's to me that's why those words like using intent is extremely important. I would. Other than that, I think. I think I have nothing else to to say with the exception of anything that I've echoed oh I'm sorry I did want to mention one thing regarding trainings training and choke holds I think that that may be considered one of one of our responsibilities is to make sure that we render first aid, especially after a use of force system within our policies that if we do use use of force officers should be evaluating the condition of the person that we've that we've had an encounter with. So, so maybe, maybe training looking at things like, what are the types of things that you notice when someone has not had, has had a you know, has not had oxygen flow. So, so maybe understanding what those signs and symptoms look like. So that officers can respond appropriately. Thank you. Thank you very much. Let's see I see Ken has a his hand up. Good sir yourself. Good. Good. Thanks. Thanks for being here. When a when one of your officers is called out. Are they informed as much as possible. If they know who the individual is. Are they informed as much as possible. What is what that person's about. I think in some cases we may if it's an individual that may be known to us that that that we've we've dealt with in the past. But but there may be cases in which we were not fully aware that there may be like immediate hang up calls or, or areas that we haven't been to. So, so so sometimes yes sometimes no. The known, the known person that the call went out for that's what if there's a history. That officer is being informed of a past history as much as possible while. I'm sorry sir I missed the last few minutes of the last few seconds of your question. And the call is made and the officer is dispatched to the person that needs help or is, or is a threat. That the that officer is given as much information as possible if it's already a known person of interest or or some dealings with the with law enforcement correct. Yes. And if there is any time. The physical altercation, or anything like that. That happens with a suspect or anybody that's around the area or anything like that. There's always a report that spilled out. For use of force incident. Yes, we do fill out use of force. I assume all police chiefs, or whoever is in charge of that officer is going to go and review each one of these, these calls correct. If there is a physical altercation. Yes, you should we should definitely be reviewing those. They do require approval from supervisors right off the bat, but in the end game, depending on how large the department is, the chief should definitely be reviewing any use of force incident. And you haven't any problems at all keeping a full force in Montpelier. As of right now, yeah, we do have two officers that are pursuing other opportunities. And I would say the answer to that is yes we put something out there within one week we haven't had any submissions, and the problems that we're running into right now are to me they're multifaceted issues it's, but where we've kind of been reduced to the fact that we're trying to steal from each other. And if I'm going to rob somebody from Burlington to come here Burlington is going to rob somebody from the county's office to go there. And in the grand scheme of things throughout the state actually nationally. Yeah, it's a leapfrog game. We don't have enough people coming into the profession. Do you think is this bill or these bills that come up are they having kind of do you do you think an unintended consequence that that maybe it's pushing applicants away they don't want to get law enforcement. Because they're afraid of. Well, for many reasons. That's been definitely some of the feedback that I've been given when I'm trying to get folks to come into the profession that some of the selling points that I'm trying to use in attracting folks to come over talking about support. I, again, the whole thing of intent. I think law enforcement as a whole, especially in the state of Vermont is ready and has been a leader and police accountability practices for quite some time. But it's looking at the intent behind it and if there is a perception that the intent is more of a gotcha game rather than this is in response to what the community is. Then then then it brings into it brings people down into coming in because they don't want to be the next person on YouTube. And how long have you been it been in Vermont as a chief. Since July 1 of 2020. Thank you sir. Yes sir. Anybody else. Thank you, chief really appreciate your testimony as always and and certainly if you did want to send some some other language, please go ahead and do so. We're going to definitely be coming back to, to this after today. Thank you madam chair I'll let Jen Morrison know. Okay, great. Thank you. Martin. Yeah, I was hoping that I could go back to Falco on a question and actually possible, possibly will do it if she's still on as well. And it's something that was brought up by Ingrid and then Sean and I think somewhat by Chief Pete as well. And that's this question of intent. And, you know, and the first instance I really don't think intent should be put into a definition so putting that aside. But looking at the crime, which right now it's, we don't have men's rail we don't have an intent in the particular prohibit votes called primitive restraint crime now but it would be changed to choke hold. I'd like I'd like your input on it but it seems to me it's kind of an interesting. It's an interesting offense because, essentially, the offense is, if lethal or deadly force was not justified. If you use this maneuver and it's resulted in serious injury or death, then you're liable for for for this homicide which it's almost like the intent is somehow wrapped up into what was the intent as far as was there a lethal or deadly force situation or not and I'm trying to work this out and trying to understand this and if you have if you can weigh in on this Falco and if I will do it if you want to weigh in on this. This question I'd appreciate it. So thank you for the opportunity to chime back in on this. I did not mention that as I was going through my comments. Our view on this would be that being, you know, we are fine with the language as is that does not speak directly to intent, because what we're trying to do is prohibited conduct that has that results, regardless of why and what the intent was behind it. But at the same time would be open to seeing possible language around intent and how that would be incorporated into the statute. But don't think that that is necessary since what we're trying to prohibit is that action with that results. I appreciate that. I don't know will if you're if you wanted to weigh in on that or not. I was always troubled by the original statute that made the choke hold of crime because it did read to me like a strict liability offense with that it would because it had no men's rare requirement or state of mind requirement for those who weren't tortured in law school. So I'm open to I'm actually open to having some kind of intent requirement So I've listened to the testimony of law enforcement and, you know, they talked about how these things can happen in the course of not intending to do so, particularly maybe an injury. So I would be open to it. As long as it was, you know, it's, it's disfavored right choke holds are disfavored in Vermont and but I think to to charge them with with the crime with the penalties that are attached to it there should be some intent in all fairness. It could it could even be recklessness presumably. Yes. Yeah, it should certainly not be a strict liability offense, I think, which is kind of what it is but not really because it's still tied back to whether the deadly force was justified and that's what I'm trying to to add that it's not quite a strict liability crime which which I really disfavor I don't think you should have strict liability crimes, but maybe I should take more pondering. Yeah, and I don't think it should take this much pondering right I mean when we're when we are attaching severe penalties to I mean really significant penalties to something. It should, it should be more clear on the face of the statute what the legislative intent is and what the, what the elements of the crime are. So, at the very least, I think it does need some some some clarification, because you know law enforcement is entitled to as much you know due process as the rest of us. So, I would be in favor of clarifying it. I hate that. So, while we're kind of backtracking a little bit. I know that Kate just had a question I located, are you willing to ask that or point that question out for us as far as that other provision. Sure, I had, I had just reached out to. So, looking at section C seven where it talks about a law enforcement officer has a duty to intervene when the officer observes another officer using a choke hold on a person. Currently that is number seven under section C which is use of deadly force. And so there's been some discussion of like does that make sense would they intervene if that is the area where we're saying a choke hold could be used and I was wondering does it make more sense to move that under subsection B. Use of force because I think it seems to me like the intent of that portion of the bill is to say that someone should intervene if a choke hold is being used in an instance when it should not be used which would be as a use of force. So just offering it up and I get curious about thoughts on that idea. Yeah, I was just wondering if the if any witnesses would have thoughts on that Maxine. I'm sorry, where were you on that. So, the word is currently it's on page five of the of the amended version that I'm that we have today. It's C seven. Section C is addressing use of deadly force. So line 14 on page five, it starts a law enforcement officer as a duty to intervene when the officer observes another another officer using a choke hold on a person. The bill is essentially saying we would only use a choke hold in the case of deadly force so in it seems like there's some confusion around that like why would someone intervene in that you know that like, and I was just wondering if the intent of the portion of the bill is is really more to address if a law enforcement officer is using a choke hold as a use of force rather than a use of deadly force or using a choke hold in a way that would not be aligned with the intent of the law. And so does it make more sense to move that section under use of force to say if an officer is using a choke hold in an instance when they should not be then other law enforcement officers have a duty to intervene. So can you add more words before the choke hold on on line 15. I see what I do see what you're saying. I don't know if you've asked the witnesses to weigh in on that or not. Yeah, I was just going to say I saw that you're, you went off mute, which is another sign for raising one's hand. I actually like represented Dolly's suggestion I think it makes a lot of sense to put that in the use of force section. I think it's pretty elegant solution actually. I would agree. I think that would work well in the use of force section. And I also see that there, you know, I don't see it as problematic and use of deadly force section as well I think it could work in both because if an officer was using a choke hold and another officer was was at the scene. I think the expectation is they would intervene to try and help deescalate that situation in some way so that deadly force was not going to be necessary any longer whether that was to try and help restrain the person in another or to provide aid to the officer, trying to find a way to deescalate that situation from a point where deadly forces necessary also feels appropriate in the deadly force section so I think also, but I would also be supportive of adding to the use of force section. Thank you. Thank you Kate. Bob you have your hand up. Yes. In reference to seven. I don't disagree what K has to say that makes sense but I think the instance that we're looking at here is. We live in rural Vermont. You know we're not in the in Burlington of the largest cities where you have your backup readily available and I think it has become instances where you were waiting for backup and during that time frame. It rose to the level of okay unfortunately this is deadly force has to be that they're only Avenue but upon arrival of another officer from four or five miles away. Once you have two officers there I think this more or less pertains to. Okay, maybe deadly force don't have to be used now. Now that I'm here. I just want to make sure this stops and then with two officers are I think that was the intent number seven here, not the direction that we're going and looking at rural Vermont how we deal with real life issues here out in the field. So can I ask Bob a question to follow up on that. Are you okay with having it in both places like Falco suggested Bob. Well I think by having it both places the intent is different. You're addressing where they want where they want to move in Martin I'm sorry. The intent is to have it in the just the standard use of force section not the deadly force section. The idea is if it's not deadly force, you know if it's not justified to use deadly force, then the officer should definitely intervene, and you've certainly, you know, you've raised a slightly question where it may have been justified when there was one law enforcement officer to use that move, but once somebody else shows up, you know, they should intervene to so they can deescalate essentially. So it seems like two different purposes, but I just want to confirm whether you're fine with it moving to the. I guess because it clarifies both instances I believe okay I agree with Falco in case far as moving it because it's covering one particular situation. But the other situation is that that's real time that's what's really happening in the field ever could happen out in the field. But I mean obviously I think we all realize that upon arrival of another officer or officers that we probably don't need to still be addressing that maneuver. I think that was intent of number seven here. So just to be clear, you think it should just be in the earlier section or is it fine on both. My reading of it I don't disagree with moving it, but I think you're missing the intent as it was covered in section seven. Because of the rule of Vermont, and there could be an officer here she haven't field by themselves. And at that instance, that was their only avenue while waiting for backup. It's the protection of his or her life. But once another officer officers arrive on scene obviously the changes the whole whole situation so what they probably should intervene. Take individual into custody and prevent anybody from getting seriously injured obviously. I think there's an instance where this could be used. Sure. So, so that says to me just to be making clear that that it could stay in it could stay here and it could move to the other. Or am I just missing it. What you're saying. Well, and I also see chief Berks hand up so I just wanted to offer a little perspective. You know the intent of the duty to intervene in duty to report unnecessary or unreasonable application of force applies to all uses of unreasonable force and a policy from a policy perspective. I understand the need or energy behind highlighting choke holds. I fully understand that, but really what we want is cops to stop unnecessary unreasonable force application by their peers in the field, and then report that. And the model policy set forth by retired chief Morrison that that is fully laid out. So I think you maybe want to reconcile that the overarching what you want for statutory framework, but also rely on on the policy and that we want cops to stop improper conduct. Great, thank you. Bob are you good. Yes, yes. Okay. Okay, great. I'm going to, I'm going to wait and move on to make a comment on that last dialogue. Quickly please. I think the second officer in the scene changes the circumstances and I think it's already a comp that encompassed by your framework of totality of circumstances and I understand representative nurses comment that, and cheap Berks comment when they have a second officer. The circumstances may reduce the need for the degree of force being exerted by the first office, so I'm not sure how much drafting we need to do when you're within this framework of totality. That's all I wanted to say. Great, thank you. Okay, Bob your hand is still up I'm not sure if you had any other questions. Okay. All right. So, I am going to go a little bit over because I did want to get to, to James Pepper and States Attorney driver was taken time out of her. Her day. Awesome. Hi, thank you for the record James Pepper from the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs. So I thought it would be helpful for the committee when considering each 145 and really act 165 from last year which has not gone into effect yet to hear from kind of a prosecutorial angle around. What is around kind of justifiable homicide self defense and how this bill and act 165 might interplay with some of the decisions around use of force or choke hold prosecutions or kind of officer involved shootings, some of the other issues that come up. So I have Tracy Shriver, who's the Wyndham County States Attorney, and she's a 22 year veteran, and has been involved in many of these reviews of use of force and officer involved shootings so I figured she might be a good person to help review some of these standards these burdens approve some of the issues around use of force prosecutions. Thank you appreciate it. So, welcome. Thank you madam chair and thank you to the committee for having me I'll try to keep my comments brief because I know you are close to adjourning. But as pepper says, I think it's important to have just a little perspective about what happens when the cases come to us and as he indicated I've done a number of these. One of the things I want to stress that I think informs some of the points that have been raised this morning are what we actually do when we get a case to decide whether or not to charge an officer who's involved in an officer involved shooting or involved in an excessive force and I'm sure you've heard this testimony from others but I think it bears repeating that we do go through the analysis that I see set forth in the law that you've very carefully drafted and then looking at the totality of the circumstances and what a reasonable officer would do in the circumstances, especially focusing on what are the policies for use of force. What is the training on use of force what are the circumstances that are presented and what knowledge does the officer have something I think that's important to stress is as the prosecutor who's reviewing this case. I get a lot of materials, and I get body worn cameras cruiser cameras cameras from any location or something might have happened. I get reports from the law enforcement officers involved any civilians involved. So I have this sort of thousand foot view of what went on and I use all of that information to make a decision on whether or not to charge. All of that information goes to the court to make a decision as well. So I know there's been some commentary about the striking of the language of hindsight. And I just want to say that I understand why that addition would be important because the people who are reviewing whether it is me just me or me and the court. Do have a wealth of information that the officer who's involved in that split second decision, not have. The other thing I think is very important to stress is that whether it's an officer involved shooting or it's an excessive force consideration.  But these are among obviously some of the most difficult cases to consider. And when it's an officer involved shooting obviously the Attorney General's office is also involved, and that's very helpful to have other prosecutors from outside the office to talk to you about the situation. But even when it's an excessive force complaint and it's something that I'm deciding within my office. It's something that I talked with other prosecutors about and obviously the investigators on the case. So it is more of a community decision just by the very nature of the way the laws on self defense and justifiable homicide are written that it's something that would take into account already community standards. And I think the guidance provided in these bills is very helpful in that regard to. And that's to that as a prosecutor. I have been faced over the 22 years with decisions that, you know, I'm not sure I'm not sure whether this is self defense or justifiable homicide. And I am very lucky when I'm faced with that decision that I have a couple of different mechanisms that I can use. I don't have to be the soul decider right I can charge a case and a judge can decide in the first instance, whether or not I'm right, but I also have a jury or a grand jury to help make the decisions. So just to break that out a little bit very recently here in Wyndham County, we had a shooting of two private citizens. And I wasn't sure if it was self defense I really wasn't. My gut told me that I didn't think it was the person who was shot was was severely severely injured. But I knew that it was a community decision and those were literal words I used in my closing argument to my Wyndham County jury I said this is the way the law is written. You can decide whether or not this person acted in lawful self defense, and your decision is the final decision, and they just agreed with me. And that's the way the system is supposed to work in my perspective on these cases that are so difficult. And a grand jury is another way that we use the community input to decide, because it's not always clear cut and in the past, it's pretty easy to go Google some newspaper articles about grand juries that brought on officer involved shootings. They are supposed to be confidential proceedings so I can't talk about any in particular but certainly it's a great tool to take all that evidence that we have about all the totality of circumstances and present it to a grand jury, a group of citizens in whatever county to decide what they think about the evidence that's presented. I raised that because early on in your conversations I was struck by the questions about would there be an expert witness on on the objectively reasonable police officer. And in 22 years I can tell you there, there are experts in everything and there could easily be experts on any side of an officer involved shooting or a deadly force case. In my opinion, the way I practice law in my county, I tend to think of the community standards on this question, and when it is not, as it frequently isn't a clear cut question that reasonable officer decision and answer can come from people who serve on juries and grand juries. So, I want to leave you time to ask me questions and a few moments you have left if you have any but I do also want to thank you for letting me contribute in any way that I can to this important work and I appreciate all the time that you all are putting into it. Thank you thank you very much appreciate your testimony it's helpful. Just looking to see if we have any hands up. Martin. Yeah. So I guess one quite a couple questions that without the benefit of the hindsight, I'm just trying to understand how that's not captured in the totality of the circumstances when it's facts known to the law enforcement officer at the time. And if you could clarify why that is different. I don't think it's different. I think. If he were listening today my former boss Dan Davis would be so thrilled to hear me say this. I think it's a belt and suspenders approach. That's what my former boss used to say all the time let's do it belt and suspenders. For me, what stands out for me is just the highlighting of the facts just to hold on a second prosecutor hold on a second court. You know, you have such a wealth of information that the officer and that split second didn't have for me it's a highlight it's not a different.  So, just, just. So, I also like just to ask you about the conversation we've had it regarding intent. And those officer in those shootings and such, how was intent looked at currently, and do you have any comments about the offense that we have the prohibited restraint which would now be the choke hold defense under this amendment. So, to your ladder point, I don't like strict liability crimes either and I would like to see some intent put into the choke hold language. I certainly have seen not been involved in obviously like some of the other people have testified, but certainly have seen situations that get, you know, very jumbled and messy and confusing and, and there's not an intentional choke hold per se put on someone and I worry about that. Currently now. Yes, we do look at the officers intent right. The most recent case I did wasn't an officer involved shooting and one of the notes that I wrote down that I think is important for the committee to consider is when an officer pulls his or her gun out of their holster.   I think that there needs to be some demarcation of an intent by the officer in that situation that they are intending to do what you very carefully and clearly laid out and I do like the additions that I saw this morning about choke hold. But I think it would be important to add some intent there. I think there's a follow up with this. Forgetting about whether it's choke hold or anything else it's some other lethal force. So if the officer in tends to use the firearm you and intends to use the choke hold. But that intent was somehow based on unreasonable understanding of whether lethal force or deadly force was justified how does that weigh into that situation. Well I think that that goes back to the reasonable officer in the same situation. I know early on there was a question about well what about the officer who misses the daily briefing and doesn't understand that the person he or she is encountering might be an Alzheimer's patient and and acts without that knowledge. I think the question has to be in that sort of situation. What are the policies of the particular agency what would the reasonably prepared officer be doing and if the reasonably prepared officer should have read that then that mistake of the facts and the situation should not be. I hesitate to use the word but the only words that are coming to mind are to get out of jail free card right. You have to use the tools that we are given. And sometimes it's difficult because you're using a reasonable officer or a reasonable person situation and all of these self defense justifiable homicide cases. But there's a little bit of subjectivity sprinkled in because what did this particular person know and what did that knowledge do for that person has to be part of the equation. So, I'm not sure if I'm answering your question representative as much as or in the way or correctly from your perspective but that is the I think that is encompassed by the totality of the circumstances reasonable officer. So, so one would, I guess if I'm just trying to still sort this out that that you knowingly I'll let's just use an example you knowingly employ a choke hold under the this offense. But you knowingly employed the choke hold when actually you look at it and it was pretty obvious that that deadly force wasn't justified for whatever number of reasons in our standards. How does that work or, or, you know, you can use any of the recklessly knowingly whatever I'm just trying to puzzle this out. So, perhaps the most recent case I could do would help. I did the Rutland involved officer involved shooting. And in that case, it became very clear that the officer who pulled the trigger on his gun intentionally right perceive the facts that another officer's life was in danger and from his point of view. An absolutely understandable but wrong perception because the officer who he thought was about to be run over by a car that was being slammed into reverse and a very high speed to have the perpetrators exit the scene. The officer by some miracle was able to tuck in role and get out of the path of that car. So the officer who pulled the trigger was wrong about the facts. But from his perspective from a reasonable person from his actual literal perspective and from his knowledge perspective it appeared that firing his gun was a necessary response to that to try to stop the driver of the car from running over a fellow officer. So, while I use that example of you, you're not going to accidentally get your gun out to say that those are all very intentional acts. I don't mean to say that the intent to stop someone from killing another officer, which is in my example has to be accurate. I do mean that he has to have intended to use his gun and not accidentally fired it. Did that help. Yeah, yeah, perhaps and I guess. So I'm trying to understand then if you have any recommendation, as far as how we would put intent into the prohibited restraint offense, which also would be called the chokehold offense at this point. And if you have any recommendations or thoughts on that. So my recommendation. I thought that the points that were brought up today were excellent that what about using a baton and what about someone who's wearing a scar for a tie like these other things can be a chokehold. I totally agree with them. If, from my perspective, if there were some way to precisely define a police maneuver of a chokehold like that's what we're talking about we're not talking about the accidental wrestling we're not talking about someone with a scar getting attached to the officers, you know, radio and causing strangulation. If there could be a precise definition of the police, even though we don't teach it maneuver of a chokehold. It seemed to me that that would help like if, if the intention was to do that maneuver. You would actually have it in the definition of chokehold not in the elements of the offense. From my perspective, I think that that would be helpful because that would rule out those unintentional actions. Thank you. Great, thank you so I am mindful of the time and we have gone over but I'm really glad that we got to hear from you and hear your testimony and like I said, we will be coming back to this we. It seems like we might have time tomorrow after the joint assembly or possibly fry. I need to see how the recipe today goes in terms of scheduling but certainly I recognize that we did not get through to all our witnesses today so we will be back to this so thank you everybody and I appreciate all the witnesses testimony and everybody hanging in here a little bit later so okay with that we will go off YouTube integer.