Hello and welcome back to The Craft Box. My name's Brenton. Today we're in episode 55 of the Wizard101 Death Walkthrough. Last episode if you haven't seen it already. We continued on with Raven, Scarwy, Defeated, Mord, Cole, and Moonen, and Frostmantle as well. And today we're starting by going to the main fortress. A magical barrier blocks your path. You do not know what kind of magic it is. Perhaps Raven knows? Perhaps he does. Who knows? So yeah, that was fantastic. We went, we got all the way there just to be like, oh, we got to go all the way back. That is fantastic, you know, absolutely fantastic. Yeah, let's head on back over to Raven. Who's right over here. A mystic barrier. How can that be? I know all the secrets of Rune Magic, and the Coven cannot be performing the ritual and keeping a mystic barrier at the same time. Some other force must be at work holding that barrier. If so, it has to be near the fortress, or else it would not work. In the caves perhaps. You must go to the caves and search for the source of the mystic barrier. Okay, let us head over and do that then. Right over here is the cave. Let's head on in, family. You think you heard the movement up ahead in the cave? Of course you do. Wouldn't you? You would, wouldn't you? You are neither Ravenbear or Warp. They were summoned inbound here by the Coven, and I have no choice but to maintain the mystic barrier. Free me, and I will leave this world at once, and the mystic barrier will depart with me. To free me from the binding that holds me here, you will need some summoning dust. This dust will help open the roads between the worlds, letting me leave on one of them. Summoning dust is carried by most Coven initiates, so it is easily gained. Okay, I'll be back once I have three summoning powder. Okay, I am back. We did that. I see that you are industrious and have gathered the summoning dust. Wonderful. Now you can place the summoning dust in that creature. That's the one. Okay. As instructed, you sprinkle the summoning dust into the brazier. It flares and burns off instantly. Now the air is right for a summoning, or a dismissal in this case. Yeah, we're just gonna sort out our DK. Just because I know he's gonna attack me, yay. Yay for knowing things. We're just gonna keep two of each, three of you, and that should be good. There we go. Okay, hello. Very good. As you are no doubt aware, summoning magic is about sympathy, making one thing resemble another in a spiritual sense. I was summoned by ravens of the Coven, and it would be easier if I were dismissed by someone resembling one of them. If you can gather some feathers from my captors, perhaps a Coven initiates and a winter wing warden, we will have the elements we need. Okay. No, not yet. But soon. I'll be back once I have these feathers. Okay, I am back. Just finished off that. Go top. Your skills are impressive. Now place the feathers in the brayser, just as you did the summoning dust. Okay. To proceed with my dismissal, we will require feathers from a Coven initiate and a winter wing warden. You have done well, young wizard. When they first summoned me, the ravens of the Coven stole a sample of my blood. Blood is what binds me, keeps me in this place. They keep it in a safe place, I am sure. Perhaps within their Coven house. If you can recover my stolen blood and restore it to me, then all will be complete. Okay, I'll be back once I have... or at the Coven house. Okay, I am at the Coven house. Let's see what is in here. Looking for something? The Coven told me you might come sniffing around here, so they sent me here to wait for you.  Oh yeah, sure. Well, definitely sure about that one, man. Okay, let us do this. Here's Storm, his 2100 health. And yes, I am using my Bostick. I just realised that myself. So that's fantastic, to be honest. Absolutely fantastic. It doesn't matter though. Just realised that that's Serong Blade, and I'm giving him a Death Blade, a Myth Blade and a Life Blade for no reason. But who cares, you know? Who cares?  That's fine.  Really. Really. Really. Really? You would, wouldn't you? Okay, well, let's blade up then. Wait, let's put a blade on. Let's see how much, how this is gonna go. I don't think this is gonna go too well. But you never know. They passed. Okay. It's interesting. Draw. We'll do this. We'll do this. And we'll do this. And see how much this does. Probably won't do too much. Expecting this will do probably about 800. About 1000. Okay, that's cool. That's even better. So that's perfect. And this is gonna do just a bit. But he's got a shield on. So we'll see what happens. Oh, that kills. That's good. And it will give him a kill this guy. There we go. Easy peasy. Um, Vile of Blood. It doesn't take long to find the Vile of Gertok Blood. Okay, I'll be back when I'm at Gertok. Okay, I am back. We are at Gertok once more. Hopefully this is last time. That's the last of what binds me to this world. Core it into the Brasier. Don't spin a drop. And I will be free. Yep, you sure will, man. Definitely be free. You pour the Vile of Gertok Blood into the Brasier. It hisses as it touches the fire. You impress me. I must admit that it will be a pleasure to silence you. The secrets of barishing my kind can go no farther. No farther. No farther. Please don't. Okay, um, let's do this. Um, we hopefully... I mean, we should be fine, hopefully. Uh, faint? Yep, faint two blades. Ah, yeah, we should be fine. We should be good. 7000 health. Okay, maybe we won't be good. That's quite a bit. Okay then. No, we should be fine. We'll be fine. We will just do a lot of blading. You know, that's how we gotta do it, man. That's how we gotta do it. How we gotta do it. And we can always hit twice, you know, it's fine as well. Okay, don't weakness me. Thank you. Firecat. Whoo, does so much damage. Oh my god, a whole 95. Ooh, so much. Um, okay. Let's draw one of you and we'll enchant the Skeletal Pyro. We will faint and hopefully get a powerpip and then we can hit. If we don't, then I'll probably hopefully have a blade, and if we don't then that's just unlucky. Really? Really? You would, wouldn't you? You would. Um, we did get a powerpip, so we're gonna hit with a yellow hurt. Just because there's no way to get that off because I don't carry twins. So, we'll just hit. It's fine. It's fine. It's fine. It's fine. It's just minus 25, you know. Weaknesses. Boop. Boop. Okay, that was nearly 2,000. That's good. Um, yeah. I don't know if we're gonna be able to actually do this this time. Yeah, um, we'll see. Hopefully. I have hope. I have hope. Maybe I should have thought of another. Oh well. Oh well, it's fine. We can always try again. Um, what, what is he on? 5,000? I mean, why not? I mean, why not? Sure, let's just. YOLO does like 5 damage. Literally 5 damage. Um, we still didn't get the blade I wanted. Oh no. Oh, I'll blade again. Also not getting perps. Isn't that cool? Maybe I should have brought some TC faints. Um, there was a blade I want. That's good. Du-du-du-du-du-du-du-du-du-du-du-du. But really, okay. Okay then, we will faint. Because we can, why not? Um, hopefully he doesn't weakness me. Please no weakness. Thank you. Firecat, that's cool. That's cute. That's cute. Okay, 149, actually that took quite a bit. Um, draw. And we will enchant you. And we will hit with you. And we will see how much Cers does.  Oh, that took 2,000. Okay. She's on 4,000 now. No. 2,400. Yep, we probably screwed. Vampire. It's up to you, man. I know I've got another one on my side somewhere. So, that'll be, that's cool. When I find that, it will be great. Well, we'll try this. And we'll see how much damage this does with Bomb Blade. We've got to do 2,000, so hopefully we can do this. I'm going to have to start bringing along spells. Okay, we may be able to just kill him. Actually, no, we don't have any more blades. Okay, we'll see. There it is. Yay, okay. Oh, that's unfortunate. Okay, let's do this. Please do a lot of damage. 5,000. 5,000. I really wish it did 5,000. 597. He has way more health than that, I believe. 597. At least we're like nearly full health. I mean, that's always good. It won't be after this. Yep, half health. Okay, that's cool. 597. 500. Yeah, no, we're screwed. Okay, just killed him. How embarrassing. I misjudged your abilities and impede for my mistake. You are a worthy opponent and I respect that. I wish you good luck with the Coven. Perhaps our paths will cross again. Okay. So yeah, no, he was... Yeah, I just added a couple more faints and a couple more things and stuff and, you know, what's it doing and blah blah blah blah blah, yeah. And managed to win. So yeah, I'm gonna quickly get some more health from over here. Then we are gonna hit on him and destroy the Coven hopefully once and for all. Um... I know that this is the last quest because I've done this so many times but I don't know if it's once and for all, eh. Could be... You never know. Could be anything, man. Okay, let's hit on him to the fortress. Oh, look, it's open now. That's cute. Um, go to location. Yeah, boy. Dun dun dun dun. Dun dun dun dun. Um, yeah, so this is kind of like a big boss fight, really. Like huge. And I hope to stop the Coven. Our ritual is all but complete. The everwinter is almost upon us. Almost upon us. Yeah, so it's kind of a big boss fight, as I said. Um, yeah. We are going to quickly change up some of our spells. I'm gonna switch to our starter deck just because it's smaller. We don't need too much.  Three. One, two, three, four. Okay. Um, yeah. We're gonna have to actually switch to our normal deck. Um, you know what? I don't really care. I can redo that.  Actually, I don't think we need this. Just because, yeah, we should be fine without them. Um, we'll do two of you just in case. Um, we'll do a couple death shields. Um, and that's what we have. Um, I mean, I don't really need shields. Yeah, that should be good. And then in that deck we'll do one of you. We will do one of you. We will do um, should I do a mess fight? I'll just do it on my phone. We'll do a couple sirens. Um, we'll do a regular prism. We'll put two blades in. We will do a cheeky we storm out just in case. We'll do a storm lord and a tempest. And we will do a lot of colossal one, two, three, four, five. We will do a we'll do one of you. Cool. Okay, let's do this hopefully we wouldn't. Oh God. Okay, that was that was a long way. They pulled me from a long way, man. Jeez. Well, I mean, let's just start painting. I guess that's the best way forwards. Whoa, they changed that. They changed the animation of that. I swear I didn't used to like zoom right in on her. That's interesting. That's interesting. Um, okay. So currently we've only had a heal. That's cool. How much health do these guys all have? Um, 4200. Okay, then. That's cool. Crackin. Uh-oh. That do a lot damage, man. Crackin is actually like OP. Like, seriously. Crackin is so OP. Oh, let me go. Hello. I haven't seen this one for a while. Hmm. 143. I don't know why they healed straight off the bat.  Why would you do that, you know? Um, cool. Another faint. Yay. Okay. On you.  Do a windstorm. This battle is actually really hard. I would highly suggest you get a high level person to help with this battle, just because it can actually be quite hard. I've tried it a lot. And it's quite hard. Quite hard. Boop. Okay. Hello. This is gonna do a bit.  Jesus Christ. Okay. About to die. That's pretty cool. Thank you for that, though. That means I can heal. Comfort of having a weakness on, so it doesn't do as much damage. Thanks, man. Literally all the weaknesses to me. More heals. More heals. More health for me. Um, okay. Do this. Boop, boop, boop, boop. This is just perfect. This span, though. Like, what the hell? Okay, I got a heal. Heal, heal, heal, man. Heal real good, man. Another weakness. I'm so popular with these weaknesses. I can heal a lot now. That's so cool. I'll heal next. Um, I mean, nobody really has too many pips except the fire, but, um, I'm not too worried. I should be, but I'm not. So, who knows. Heal myself. Boop, boop, boop, boop, boop, boop. Just gonna pass. Do, do, do. Do, do, do. Do, do, do, do. I think we'll hit next. Oh, hello. Oh, okay. You are hitting me. That's unfortunate. Oh, it's a sunbird. Oh, I'm nearly dead. Just as well I heal today. Yep. 129. Woohoo. I nearly did. Yay. Boop. Oh, I died. I don't know. Rip that weakness gone. Oh well. Um, lost all my pips as well, which isn't too good. 300. Is it worth it? No, probably not. Do, do, do. I mean, we can hit now. So, might as well hit. Um, just gonna pass and pray that we kill. Could die. Won't die. Can't do 800 with three pips. Can you? Can you? Can you? Please don't. Please don't. Good. 300. I don't think you can do 800 with three pips. Not that good. Um, okay. Sirens, here we go. Crit. Possibly. Possible crit would be nice. Nope. Okay, that's fine. Boop. Boop. Okay, you're definitely dead. Rip you. 10,000. Okay then. You are definitely dead. Probably, yeah, you'll be dead. 6,700. 6,700. And hopefully, that will be dead. He should be dead. Won't do. It would do like 4,000. Hopefully 4,200. No, he's not dead. Shit. He's not dead. At least he'll be wanting to target him now. So that's always good. Means I can, um, still not heal. What? Yeah, Timberstool, girl. Especially if we blade. Oh, he passed. Even better. Boop, boop, boop. And... Oh, that's hilarious. I can try and do anything. And I just fizzle, you know. Um, I don't want to do this in case I die. So... Yeah. Dying would be bad. Nope, no, I wouldn't have died. It's good. Just not taking any chances though. Boop. And he's dead. No fizzle, thank you. He's dead this time, definitely. Yay. Yay, yay, yay, yay, yay. There we go, 1,306. Perfect. Sure will, man. Okay. So, yeah, that is... I don't know, Archmage Jewel. That's... kind of cool. Um, head back to North Guard, definitely. But you know what this means? This means that we've finished Grizzleheim. Whoa, that's amazing. Next episode we can go into Dragon Spire, yay. And actually get some decent XP for once, jeez. Um, boop. Boop. Boop. Boop. Mana. All the mana is mine. Yes. Okay, let's head on over and talk to the king. And we end off the other side. Load, load, load, load, load, load, load, load. Let's go. Hello. Okay. That is that done. What do you want? Okay. That is that done. What do you want? Could you come at once to my office? Grizzleheim has made again of your assistance. Can you go to... Can you go to... I don't know, you could go to Winter Tusk at Lowers 41. Hmm. Anyway, next episode we will head on over and head on into Dragon Spire. We'll start with... Oh, I didn't click the last... That's a shame. That was actually some decent speed. I'll get that in between episodes. But your next episode we will head on in and talk to Cyrus Drake and start Dragon Spire as you can see it's a main quest. So yeah. Thank you for watching. Remember to leave a like and subscribe and if you haven't subscribed press the bell to know exactly when I post another video. And remove a craft outside the box.


And this is just, which is the pointer? This is the, I can use the screen for advancing, but. Okay, okay, I probably wanted the point. Good morning everyone. What I wanted to give you today, we're starting exactly half an hour like, okay, so that should be 45 minute lecture. I wanted to go over, sort of set some conceptual groundwork for the next two weeks. We'll be hearing a lot about different kinds of interactions between the tropics and exotropics. And so there are some concepts, some ideas which may underlie them, even implicitly they may not even be stated, but just sort of give you some background for those. The first one is, there are some of the language we use when we're talking about how the exotropics respond to the tropics is actually almost subconsciously based in theories of stationary, stationary wave theory. So what I mean by stationary wave theories, if you have an anomalous source in the tropics, which is stationary, it just sits there. Okay, there'll be a stationary response, just a time-independent response in the latitudes. And that's been very well studied, that's relevant on longer time scales, but some of those concepts have been sort of, are used even, we don't realize it when we're describing interseasonal shorter term responses of the exotropics, the tropical forcing. So it's good to know, and to ask ourselves the question, can we use some of these ideas of stationary wave theory? I also wanna just remind us of a topic that may or may, that hopefully will come up, that the tropical forcing can affect not only the mean circulation of the exotropics, but it can change or excite different kinds of instabilities in the extra tropics. In particular, barotropic instability, I'll just remind, talk about that a little bit. There are many ways in which the tropics actually respond to the extra tropics, and some of them, I'm going to give you a couple of examples, okay, actually one of them in which I actually did some computations for this. And finally, there are situations or ways in which the tropics and extra tropics may be more coupled together, okay, as part of a sort of global oscillation than is often realized, and I'm going to at least mention one of those briefly. So to just try to get you to think about the framework for the whole two weeks. So the first topic, the words that I didn't write down here that I want you to think about are rosby wave source, okay, you may have heard of them, and it sounds like, okay, you have some disturbance here and rosby waves propagate eastward from that, okay. In the context of the extra tropical response to the tropical forcing, that has kind of a background, a theoretical background, which I just wanted to sort of briefly indicate. So the first slide, and I'm going to show the slide tomorrow again, okay, in a different context. This actually comes from a recent paper by Grant Branstadder in 2014, and the question was exactly, what is the response of the extra tropics to tropical heating anomalies that are short-lived? What is the response of those to the same tropical heating anomalies if they were to just stay there permanently? So what he did was, he took an atmospheric model, a dry model so that no moisture, so you can just add heating, specify heating, and he put it, for example, in this set of experiments here on the left column, he just put a heating where that red, that yellow circle is, a deep heating, representing anomalous convection there for two days, only two days, that's like a pulse. Put it on, leave it there for two days and turn it off. And that's days two, sorry, this is day three, day six, and day nine, so this is the, what you're looking at actually is the meridional wind at, in upper levels, indicating the, you can see the development and the spread of the Rossby waves, even though at all these times, the heating has already been turned off, okay? So his point was that by the time you get to day nine, if in the same panel, he were to show the result of the meridional wind at upper levels to a stationary heating source, he would get almost the same pattern, okay? So tomorrow I'm going to talk about this in a different, the same picture in a completely different context, but in this context, this gives us some hope that we can at least apply ideas of stationary wave theory to transient perturbations in the tropics. So the first thing I want to remind you of, and maybe the most important thing, is that in some general sense, the exotropical response to tropical perturbations is usually has a barotropic vertical structure. So that's kind of seen very often, and to try to come up with an example, I had to put one together. So what I took was for stationary waves now, I just thought about the El Nino Southern Oscillation, okay? So what I did was I looked at the response to a warm event of 8283, I took the anomaly of the boreal winter mean compared to a 32 year climatology from reanalysis, and I looked at the top panel shows the divergence, okay? Tropical divergence just along the equator from here we have a longitude on the x-axis and we have pressure level. And you can see there is convergence, so negative divergence means convergence, right? The air coming together as you expect for the anomalies in the warm event of El Nino where you have anomalous convection in the east, essentially in the eastern Pacific, and right above the anomalous convergence, there's anomalous divergence, okay? So reversal from above and below. And if you look at the U-wind anomaly in middle attitudes for that same period, you can see that it's, you can see that the vertical structure of it is there's almost no phase shift with height, okay? So we call that theory equivalent barotropic, but it says, well, maybe the barotropic dynamics has a lot to do with this. Maybe somehow we can relate, with barotropic dynamics, we can relate this upper level divergence, right, to the wind that occurs in the latitudes. So this is another example of the same thing, except I now took the stream function, the, what I took was the seasonal mean stream function and removed the zonal mean to get just the eddies, but so really stationary eddies. And you can see again in the tropics, there's kind of the top panelist, average from 15 south to 15 north, you can see the barotropic structure and the bottom panel, you can, I'm sorry, you can see the first baroclinic mode, okay? You can see the reversal right between lower levels and upper levels between 1,000 millibars and 150 millibars here in the eastern Pacific, and in the, this isn't working too well. You can see a barotropic structure here, right? So this kind of motivates the use of the barotropic dynamics. This is the same thing for another warm winter, 97, 98. Again, some kind of reversal in the tropics, but completely equivalent barotropic structure in the extra tropics. So this is again the notion that the extra tropical response can be barotropic. So let me go this way. So this is my simple mode of tropical convection, my simple model of tropical anomalous tropical convection. As you know, you have divergence below with small vertical velocities, strong rising motion leading to negative OLR because the cloud tops are the ones that are radiating out to space and they're cold, and then the upper level winds have a divergence, D, which is positive. So how does this, so how do we relate to this idea of Rusbe wave source? How do we relate, how do we represent this tropical motion, this tropical rising motion? Well, scale analysis and some theory will show you that if you look at the thermodynamic equation, the important terms are this theta here is the potential temperature. So I'm just kind of writing a second law of thermodynamics. It just basically says vertical advection of theta, W d theta dp is balanced by tropical heating. Since, now let's get this straight, theta's got a potential temperature as the increase with height, right? So d theta dp's gotta be negative in the mean and omega's negative. So d theta dp, this is a negative term here. So that's basically saying negative omega is definitely strongly related in the seasonal mean to positive heating. Okay, so again, so that's kind of that absurd, that's that picture. So the strong rising motion leads to large-scale divergence and we get a little bit faster. So now I write down the barotropic forticity equation, okay? And it's just the advection of absolute vorticity which is relative vorticity plus the Coriolis parameter. And then there's this term on the right, this is an approximate version of the vorticity equation, okay?  And that's called S and that's called the Waspy wave source. Now right away, we have a problem in terms of thinking about the exotropical response to tropical anomalies, particularly when you have tropical easterlies because stationary wave theory, and I'm not gonna actually go through that, but there's several different ways you can look at it. Stationary wave theory says that if you have a source in easterlies in the tropics, it won't in the time mean affect the exotropics, okay? So the zero wind line, right? The easterlies in the tropics prevent its influence from propagating to the extra tropics. But that's where the heating source is in fact. The heating source, this source of divergence here which just comes from the heating and the rising motion is in fact very often in easterlies. So what is going on here? That's a paradox. And this is what the term, this is the paper where I think the term Waspy wave source comes from, the start of Schmuck and Hoskins. What they pointed out is that, yes, this is true in this equation, but skip this one. The problem is that before I had the total wind here, in fact, if you wanna use the barotopic model and the barotopic fraticity equation, you can only solve for the rotational component of the wind. Just to remind you, the rotational component of the wind is the part, the component of the wind that has zero divergence. So if you wanna use the barotopic fraticity equation, there's another term that should appear that where you have the divergent component of the wind as part of the advection, that now will appear on the right side of the source. The reason I say that is this is a nice prescription, this equation right here is a nice prescription because for actually solving it with a barotopic fraticity equation, if you have some friction and you can specify the divergence from the tropics as fixed and you can specify the divergent component of the wind, okay, the component of the wind that actually has the divergence from the tropics, then you can solve this equation because the only variable is the stream function, right? The stream function will give you the relative vorticity and that plus F will give you the absolute vorticity and so the stream function will give you the advection, like the rotational winds. So you have a closed system that you can solve. So they pointed out that specifying the Rossby wave source, you really need to keep both of these terms into account including advection by the divergent wind, which you have to specify, and that's actually just in words. So there's a new source, this is traditional source, sorry, the traditional source is just the divergent in terms of vorticity, now there's a new source, advection by the divergent flow and just to give you an example and kind of go a little faster, these are contours of absolute vorticity and that's the traditional Rossby wave source you're specifying a divergence at upper levels in the Western Pacific here in this experiment and so the divergence is right here and the traditional Rossby wave source would be right here and they don't show but this is pretty much in the region of Easterlies. The new Rossby wave source as they run the barotropic model, here's the divergent wind, and in the Northern Hemisphere there's a strong gradient of absolute vorticity, the divergent wind advects the absolute vorticity northwards, okay, and that pulls the Rossby wave source into regions of Westerlies, it pulls it out of the deep tropics. So this paper was a, I think just in terms of simple concepts, an important message, sends an important message that you can think of barotropic model giving a stationary wave response in mid-latitudes, but you have to have the correct Rossby wave source. Okay, so that's one thing just to keep in mind. The second topic I want to move on to quickly is the change in mid-latitude, instabilities due to tropical forcing. So this is this paper by Simmons Wallace and Branstetter in 1983 and they talked about the role of mid-latitude barotropic instability. We're all familiar with baroclinic instability, storm tracks, rapidly developing disturbances, right, that occur all around the world, especially in mid-latitudes. Barotropic instability is less often discussed. They used basic states which had a lot of longitudinal and latitudinal variation and they were able to find for a chronological flow just using the barotropic model. They were able to find low frequency fluctuations which derived their energy from the barotropic instability. They had an e-folding, they had periods of about 45 and also there were shorter periods and e-folding times growth rates were leading to e-folding increased in about seven days. It's kind of slow compared to typical barotroclinic instabilities, but as you'll see in a second, these barotropic instabilities have a lot of geographical variation and locally in space and time they can grow very rapidly. And this mode may play a big role, may be excited by tropical forcing and particularly the Madden-Julian Oscillation which we'll hear a lot about later. So I just wanted to just run through this quickly. So this was the most unstable mode, okay, and basically what happens it's an oscillating mode that propagates and grows. So it's not just the patterns that it goes through or a whole sequence of patterns here starting from the top left, top right, middle left, middle right, bottom left, bottom right. Okay, that's sort of half a period of its growth. So the overall energy only has an e-folding time of about 6.8 days but there are periods in their regions you can find right here where it's growing from this panel to this panel very quickly. Okay, so this mode is kind of, there's a lot of structure going on in this mode and what they pointed out was, and I know I'm jumping ahead a little bit, we'll hear a lot more about the Madden-Julian Oscillation which is related to convection and the tropics that move slowly through the Western Pacific and in different phases of that oscillation these are the mid-latitude responses and stream function. So all I want you to get out of this picture is that, for example, this top right panel here, okay, which shows one of the maps that I just showed you on the previous page has something in common with this response of the MJO in one phase. In fact, there's some of the patterns some of the features look similar and also this map looks much like negative of this map. Okay, you can see a positive, positive and negative here and negative and negative and positive there. So this paper goes through this in a lot more detail. The point is the response to the Madden-Julian Oscillation may involve both actually, it may involve several modes. This is the longest, the mode that takes the longest to repeat 45 days and then there's another mode which is actually, no, this is a similar picture. I don't want to go through all the panels in detail but again, the take home message is simply that this baritope instability can be excited by tropical forcing, okay, but it's an intrinsically mid-latitude phenomenon, okay? And that really can't, we can't forget about that. So let me very quickly switch gears to possible ways in which, or possible way in which the tropics may respond to mid-latitudes. So there's actually been a lot of this in the literature. This is taken from a paper by Knippertz in 2007, okay? And it's basically upper level troughs at low latitudes. So basically disturbances from mid-latitudes, troughs that descend into the tropics, okay, and stimulate tropical convection. So this is an actual satellite picture, okay? So this is on an isentropic level, a level of constant potential temperature. So if the flow is basically governed by 80 batted dynamics, it should stay on the surface, okay? And this is close to the 200 millibars in the tropics. So basically what you have are the streamlines of the flow on the surface, okay? Coming in from here and here's 30 north, here's the tropics, here's 30 north. You can see the streamlines coming down in. This is actually, if you're into this kind of thing, it looks like it's related to an anti-cyclonic rugby wave break, but that's not necessary to know that. The dashed lines are the isotax, how strong the winds are. And you can see this sort of trough coming descending into mid-latitudes. And you can see this is the cloud picture, okay? This is actually the picture on which all these lines are superimposed is a satellite infrared image of a tropical plume, okay? Going, coming out from the tropics here into the extra tropics. So it's a nice sort of, the smoking gun of extra tropics affecting tropical convection, okay? So, and there are lots of examples of this, pictures like this you can find in the literature. Another example, which I don't have a picture of is cold air outbreak in northern winter over Siberia, okay? Extending all the way into the equatorial Pacific, alright, in the middle of the Pacific and leading to convection. So I thought I would do some diagnosis to represent that. And I'm gonna show you pictures that appear in the paper that we've submitted with Highland as a co-author and Christine and I to Highland's lead author to the views of geophysics. The idea here is to do something really simple. So let's concentrate, I know some of you are interested in storm tracks, let's concentrate on fields which vary with time scales of less than 10 days. So could be related or should be related in the middle attitudes to the storms. So if you just concentrate on those fields and you look at the momentum flux, okay? And you average it over a whole winter and then many winters. And this is nothing new, but people know this but somehow it's never commented on. What you find in the subtropics, sorry, the southern hemisphere is that the momentum flux is less than zero, okay, everywhere. And it turns out according to wave theory that relates to a quaterward propagation of waves. The same thing in the northern hemisphere except now the momentum flux is greater than zero, okay? So in both cases it's poleward. In both hemispheres the momentum flux is poleward but again there's some theory that relates a positive momentum flux to a quaterward propagation of waves. The thing I'm having said all those words, the thing I want to point out is look how far this momentum flux extends into the tropics. In the southern hemisphere it's what? It's very well behaved, it stays out of the tropics, right? 26 out of the tropics. In the northern hemisphere it's not well behaved at all, it incurs all the way down to out what is that, 10 more, okay? So that already gives you a hint that there's a quater propagation of mid-latitude kinds of events which are very better clinic in nature can have an effect on the tropics. So I sort of scratched my head to come up with a way of doing that. So what I did is the following and I'm summarizing a lot of work. You can estimate the diabetic heating from modern re-analyses and we can talk about that later, okay at length how to do that. It's just an estimate and just do some temporal filtering, okay? Make sure that it's a nice smooth tropical heating that you're getting. So that you can get day by day at every grid point and you can get the product of these high frequency momentum fluxes day by day at every grid point, okay? And you can just do the covariance of those two. The point being, are there places where equatorward propagation of waspy waves indicated by positive momentum flux are correlated with the tropical heating. So you do that for winter. You do that, then average it together and of course this is a satellite projection. That's the middle of the Pacific there. And you can see nothing, okay? Clonologically there's not anything. But that's climatologically in certain winters you can find, for example, the winter of 1989 and 1990 you can find a strong positive covariance where equatorward propagation of waspy waves is related strongly covariating with heat diabetic heating, okay? So for that season you really did get a strong effect of the extra tropics on the tropics and then to prove this, that this is not to actually show you how this works, I picked one day in a different year just for variety. What you see on the left panel in the contours is just the meridional wind, the high-pass meridional wind, okay? And the colors are tropical heating. And you can see kind of, I indicated just by having an arrow here, you can see kind of a wave train propagating into the, from the extra tropics into the tropics. That's the associated positive momentum flux and in the eastern, here in the eastern tropical Pacific you get heating, okay, where you normally don't get, okay? So this is kind of another, this is similar to the photograph, sort of a kind of a smoking gun of extra tropical incursions into the tropics related to tropical heating, okay? So that's something I hope we'll discuss more and hear more about and think more about in the next two weeks. So how much, how am I doing time-wise? I'm gonna probably, I used to have one more. Okay, I probably won't, but okay. So, okay, the one thing I should mention are these estimates of diabetic heating. It's not so easy to get diabetic heating, right? Because you don't analyze it, you don't measure it directly. So this diabetic heating was obtained if you would just write down the thermodynamic equation, the time rate of change of potential temperature or entropy is related to diabetic heating. And with modern re-analyses you have, you have enough resolution and time and space and good enough data that you can basically estimate that as residual, okay? So just remember in re-analyses what you're doing is every six hours you're getting the best possible state of the atmosphere that's dynamically consistent but influenced strongly by observations, right? So you're going from one state to the next state to the next state. And nevermind what the model is, the final re-analysis, if it's a good model, okay, and a good data assimilation system should be realistic. So I'm just counting on that to back out the diabetic heating as one of the terms in the budget, okay? And the reason I'm mentioning that is it's particularly, seems to be particularly related to tropical convection in the 700 to 300 millibar range. Okay, the last, so, okay, so we have the, we now hopefully have the idea that the tropics can be influenced by the extra tropics. So now I want to present something that's old but sort of weird, okay? That's the way to describe it. It's a paper I wrote with Richard Linsen in 2000. So are these coupled? Are they, sometimes coupled or they always coupled, okay? So this is the idea, okay? This is, people are still asking me about this, but anyway, so if you think of really simple theoretical studies of beryclinic instability on a sphere, okay? Sorry, not simple. Realistic beryclinic instability on a sphere, right? Really good models, correct spherical geometry. They'll indicate that zonal wave numbers eight to 15, sort of synoptic waves are the most unstable. These are the ones that we see every day and these waves saturate relatively quickly. They grow and they mature and they decay in 10, 15 days. But there are more slowly growing longer waves. Longer waves are actually, I think of planetary waves, wave numbers one, two and three. They are beryclinically unstable, okay? They grow more slowly. They're able to achieve higher amplitudes, particularly in this upper troposphere stratosphere, okay? So the ancient theoretical literature, those were called green modes. In the first paper I ever published, the title was Long Wave Beryclinic Instability on the Sphere. And it was exactly about these, okay. And they were already just talked about in the 70s. So okay, so that's one thing to keep in mind. So zonal wave number one, which is a planetary wave, can still be part of beryclinic instability. Now for some theoretical reasons, you can expect a phase speed of the wave, which if let me remind you, which related to the frequency divided by the dimensional wave number, to be in this range. If you believe that if you buy this, or you just blink and say okay, I'll swallow that, then it turns out there's something very interesting that happens. If you take phase speeds in a range of one to 10 meters a second, and you specify that the zonal wave number is, the zonal wave number is m equals one. Sorry, there's a mapping this equation's wrong. There's a mapping between the dimensional wave number k and the zonal wave number, okay. But if you take zonal wave number one, find out what the correct k is depending on the latitude, and evaluate this range of phase speeds, you find that the range of frequencies is almost exactly the range of frequencies that are in the Madden-Julian oscillation. That's pretty, is that a, that could be a coincidence, right? Because in one case I'm talking about some theoretical long wave baryclistic instability. In the other case, we're talking about a well-known tropical, well-known tropical phenomenon, which we're gonna hear a lot more about. So the idea was the following. The idea was to study the coherence. So we're gonna concentrate on eastward propagating waves because the Madden-Julian propagates eastward in these baryclistic instabilities propagates eastward. And we're gonna look at the zonal wind field. And we're gonna just see how coherent they are between different latitudes and levels. So the idea was let's concentrate on planetary waves, just wave number one or wave number two. And there's some theory you can use, which I won't bore you with, that allows you to isolate eastward propagating waves, okay. So we're looking at a real subset of fluctuations. They're propagating eastward. They're planetary waves one or maybe two. And they have these frequencies which are in the range of the Madden-Julian oscillation. They also happen to have a phase speed which are of relevance for baryclistic instabilities. So let me remind you what the coherence means. It's always something that's easy to forget. So we're gonna be looking at two time series, okay, which fluctuate, okay. And I'm not gonna be looking at a single frequency. I'm gonna be looking at a range of frequencies. And the two time series, which will be displaced from each other. So the question is for these two time series will the phase, if you just think of one frequency, have a sine wave at one latitude and sine wave at another latitude, there'll be a phase relationship, right? Is that phase relationship robust if I just move the frequency slightly, okay? So basically you can think of two fluctuating series which have a fairly robust phase relationship with each other, okay? That's what the coherence measures. And it's supposed to be an indication of some physical connection. That's the idea. So the only picture, oh, I can't do it this way. The only picture I'm gonna show you from the paper because they're all similar. So this is Linsen, Strauss and Linsen 2000 is this funny picture. So this is the coherence here, okay? Between basically this, these magnidruy and oscillation range of frequencies for wave number one between the base point here at 32 North and 300. And you can obviously tell that's the base point because that's where this coherence comes up to one. Obviously the coherence is one at every point of perspective itself, okay? And all other, the same time series, the same filtering by the different latitudes at different levels. And you find that there's something going on with some connection between these two propagating waves at high latitudes or either coherence squared or about point greater than point four. But then you get this bullseye at about 12 North of a coherence of point seven, kind of like half the variance in these two time series is related to each other, okay? That coherence is so high compared to what you expect that for one solid month I was convinced I had a coding bug, okay? And so I spent a month checking out the code every which way I could and there was no coding bug, okay? So this is kind of remarkable. This says that, I'm sorry, this was taken over an extended winter period for 39 years, okay? That's, so it's mostly boreal winter but it's really an extended winter, October to March. So what this says is that fluctuations which might be related to the jet instability are here in the upper troposphere, okay? Because remember the jet, this only mean jet is around 30 something, 32 North, are strongly coherent with fluctuations which may very well in the U-wind, okay? And I picked the U-wind because it sort of captures both what's going on in these mid-latitudes and it's important for the MJO, the upper-level U-wind, remember my picture of tropical convection. So you can see that these two are very strongly coherent. Now the interesting thing is the first thing you should, we thought of, well, oh, that's just the middle-latitudes responding to the MJO, okay? Or it could be the MJO responding to middle-latitudes. So what we did was the exact same thing but we tried to put a ton lag between the tropics and the extra tropics. And it turns out the best result, the strongest coherence is a time lag zero. And if you change it five days, either ways, it doesn't matter very much. So this would, on face value, it's, we don't, we totally understand this but on face value it suggests that there are ways in which the tropics and extra tropics are globally coupled. And I don't know if we're gonna be hearing about it in the next two weeks. There are instability models, okay, of, which take into account heating, basically theories of global instability where you can get modes which have both tropical and extra tropical disturbances growing with all the physics in them at the same time. So this is something we also ought not to totally forget. Okay, so I have 10 minutes. I wanna just again be just quickly, oh, I have a conclusion slide, okay. So clearly, if we think about the, just to conclude, and I wanna be happy to take questions, if we can think about a mid-lateral response to tropical forcing, always in the back of your mind when you're thinking about that, think is this something that you can relate to stationary waves or is this something totally, or the mid-lateral is responding in a way which is new because the forcing is transient, okay. And we're gonna be talking about that a lot, especially with the MJO. We also ought to think that tropical forcing can affect mid-latitudes in a more subtle way, which is that it can excite mid-latitude, but it will change the storm trucks. We know that. I haven't actually mentioned that. The tropical forcing will alter the mid-latitude storm trucks. It's baroclinic instability, but in a more subtle way, it may also excite mid-latitude barotropic instabilities, okay. So that's always something to keep in mind. I've tried to show you one diagnosis or one way in which the extra tropical disturbances can actually lead to tropical heating. There are probably more than I've covered. I know that people are interested in this incursion of these russby waves into the tropics to quite an extent these days. And finally, I should keep in mind that there are these bits and pieces of evidence floating around that the tropics and the tropics are not, you can't think of them as separated by a wall, okay. That's actually also true, I think, for the troposphere and stratosphere. We tend to think of tropical meteorology and exotropical, okay. And in some cases, this is not a good idea to think of them as totally separate. Okay, so I'm happy to take questions and discussion, including those from the directors.


The House has passed its version of S119. The version 119 that the House passed was done in consultation with members of your committee. The House, Bryn, can walk us through it, but our choices today are to concur, to concur with further proposal amendment or to ask for a committee of conference. I don't think we have a choice to just sit here and ignore it. So those are our choices. No matter how I feel about it, no matter what I think about it, this is a democracy. And if it's a three to two vote to do anything, then that's what we go with. You know, we may have differences on the floor and how we vote, but whatever the majority says is why we'll deal with it. And I hope that's acceptable to everybody on the committee. That's why we've always operated on any other way to operate. Makes sense. I mean, I think you're right. That is the way we do things. That's why we do it in our committee also. Well, I don't know of any other way to deal with it. So we do have Bryn here to kind of walk us through what they've done, what they ended up doing rather than we walked through a number of changes that they made, but we could walk through that. And we have suggestions from the Commissioner of Public Safety for changes to our version of S119 that we passed back in June. Then we have, in my opinion, political reality that the governor would probably veto the House bill as it stands today. That's just my feeling, knowing calls have been made to several senators by law enforcement organizations in opposition to the House passed bill.  So I just, before we go into a walkthrough, if that's where we're going, I just want to express one thing I'm thinking. So there's been a lot of worry on the committee about time. And I think if you go back a couple of weeks, I was talking about not wanting to get into a situation where we were 48 hours from adjournment and trying to amend or radically change a bill, because that always winds up with a meeting in the Speaker's office or in the Pro Tem's office. And I wouldn't want it to end that way. So of the options concurring, I think I could do with what I know today, looking through the bill, asking Bryn questions without the need for further witnesses. If nothing were to happen and the bill died, then that would be what it is. What I can't see doing is at this point trying to create a new version of the bill that goes back to the House. I really just don't think there's time for that. Okay. Well, are there many members? I mean, I think Phillip is right. There isn't, there really isn't time because if we created a new version and sent it back, a new version either of our original version or further amended the House version, it would not go back until tomorrow. And we're done on Friday, I understand. So, if Phillip is right. All right, I think. Okay. Well, let's continue to, Bryn, if you could go through the changes to 119, the House made, perhaps using the side-by-side that you have on the best vehicle. I'm still dealing with an old side-by-side, so I have to continue. Peggy, you put that up on the screen. Sure. Give me one second. Okay. So, good morning, committee. For the record, Bryn here from Legislative Council. So, you have here an updated side-by-side. So, I know that you've looked at this document a few times. The middle column now contains the language from the draft that was passed by the House. So, I think that you all look at draft 4.1. So, I'm going to point out the changes between draft 4.1 and draft 5.1 that was passed by House Judiciary Committee and also the changes that were made on the floor. There are two floor amendments that passed. So, I'll try and point out all of the differences between what you saw before and what you have before you now in the middle column, which is the House passed column. So, Peggy, you'll just have to scroll when I ask you to if you don't mind and thank you. So, you see on page one, section one, we've talked about that definition force as physical coercion employed by law enforcement to compel a person's compliance with the officer's instructions. That was not in the Senate version. Peggy, you can scroll down to the next page, please. So, no changes were made to that definition. Imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. No changes made there. You can scroll down to the next page, please. The committee talked a little bit about that language that appeared at the end of that definition. Peggy, if you don't mind scrolling up a little so we can see that full sentence there. So, this is sort of putting some parameters on that definition. And the only change here that was made is to change the word instantly. So, this is when you're talking about an imminent threat. All apparent from all appearances, that threat must be instantly confronted and addressed appeared in the Senate version. The House version changed that to immediately addressed and confronted. They just swapped the order of those two words and they changed instantly to immediately as that's a term that's more frequently used in jurisprudence about police use of force. Thank you, Peggy. So, if you could scroll down some more now. Law enforcement officer definition is the same. Prohibited restraint definition is the same. They went back to the Senate version of that definition. And then here, if you'll stay here for a minute, the definition of totality of the circumstances changed from the last version that you saw. If you remember there was that qualifying language that included whether or not a person was experiencing either some sort of disability or if their behaviors were impacted by factors outside of the person's control, all of that language was removed. So, now the totality of the circumstances definition is really quite similar to the Senate past version. Conducting decisions of law enforcement leading up to the use of force and all facts known to law enforcement at the time. So, it really is the same as the Senate version. It just swaps the order of those two clauses. I'm going to keep going to use of force. So, this is all the same as you saw in the last version. If you could scroll down to the next page, please, Peggy. Thank you. So, here in subdivision two, this is the standard that set forth for a law enforcement officer using force. And you went over this language a little bit the last time you looked at this bill. The House version does provide for some expanded circumstances under which law enforcement may use force. So, if you remember the language that was in the Senate version provided that law enforcement shall only use that force that's objectively reasonable and proportional when they're affecting an arrest. And so, the House added that language there in yellow or to achieve any other lawful law enforcement objective. So, that's different from the House, from the Senate version. Subsection four here. If you scroll down a little bit more, Peggy, so we can see the full sentence there. This is the language that says that what that decision by law enforcement to use force is objectively reasonable. That analysis has to be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation. And then the House added that language that that can sit that evaluation has to include the fact that an officer's failure to use some feasible or reasonable alternative to force is a part of shall be a consideration. So, it has to be a part of that analysis about whether or not their action was objectively reasonable. So, that language does. Go over that again, please. That's confusing to me. Sure. So, Peggy, if you scroll up just a little so we can see that full sentence. So, this is the part of the use of force section that talks about what the reasonable officer analysis looks like. So, it provides some specific language that that decision to use force has to be objectively reasonable. If you remember from B2, there's that the objectively reasonable proportional and necessary. But this is trying to put some parameters on what it means to be objectively reasonable. So, I don't remember that new language. That's the first I've seen it, isn't it? That language, I believe, did appear in draft 4.1. I highlighted it here to indicate that it did not appear in this picture. Yeah. So, shall I keep going? Yeah. But what that basically, what does that basically do? And it basically provides, it sets some guideposts for what reasonable law enforcement use of force looks like. So, as a part of that analysis about whether law enforcement use of force was objectively reasonable, you have to consider whether or not the officer failed to use feasible and reasonable alternatives to the use of force prior to using force. So, if there was another option for that law enforcement officer, meaning it was feasible for a law enforcement officer to use some other tactic apart from force, and it was reasonable that they do so, then that's considered that may work towards a decision that the law enforcement use of force was not reasonable, not objectively reasonable. And can I ask a question? That's totally confusing to me, I'm sorry. The last minute, second guessing, but I don't understand. Well, okay. Well, those words reasonable and feasible are modify, whether modify that clause. So, any alternatives that the law enforcement officer could use to the use of force would have to be reasonable alternatives and feasible alternatives within the law enforcement officer's power to use instead of force. And I ask a question. Oh, go ahead. So, that decision is made afterward by somebody reviewing the situation in the case, right? So, that if we don't know, it isn't the officer him or herself making that decision that there's some other feasible means here. It's somebody afterwards making a determination that in their opinion, there would have been other actions that could have been taken. Is that, do I understand that right? Well, I think both are true. So, you know, law enforcement will be trained on this, and it's part of what is considered reasonable behavior by a law enforcement officer. So, this is all putting some standards in place that are supposed to guide what officers understand about the appropriate use of force. So, B2 provides that the use of force has to be objectively reasonable, has to be proportional, and has to be necessary. So, what this subdivision four is saying is what does objectively reasonable mean? So, the House added that sentence saying it's part of the analysis of whether that use of force was reasonable. If the law enforcement officer had reasonable and feasible alternatives to the use of force, but went ahead and used force anyway. Bryn, so as an example, if there's someone pulled over for a traffic stop and an officer comes up and asks them to get out of the car, they say no, and the officer strikes them with the butt of their gun and knocks them out. An ex post facto analysis might say you had several other reasonable alternatives for dealing with that situation, but you skipped over them and you went to a much higher level of deadly force than you needed. Is that correct? Yeah, that's a fair analysis. I think that, yeah, that also would look to the proportionality component of the standard. Yes. Okay. Not just deadly force, though. It's a force. Yeah. Okay, thanks. I don't think feasible works, but okay. Yeah. Well, I guess, am I wrong that this is Monday morning quarterbacking? Well, again, I think what Senator White pointed out is an important point that this is not just a part of the analysis undertaken by a fact finder after the fact, but it also is providing some explanation for what a reasonable, objectively reasonable person means for when law enforcement are trained on the standard. So it's not just that analysis is undertaken by the court, but it's also what analysis does a law enforcement officer undertake when they're deciding whether or not to use force. That would be fair then to say that it would require training manuals to discuss this topic beforehand. Just trying to play out in my head. I know this language will end up in jury instructions. A judge who's doing a judge trial would be using it to make Monday morning quarterback decisions, but I'm just trying to figure out how it would work its way into the training of a police officer. Well, just wrong. There there's a and I'm I might be wrong, but I believe there was an amendment added that speaks directly to training. So there are going to be significant shifts and training required if this is adopted. And this would be one of them, but continues through the run through. So at the bottom of this page, you'll see the subdivision five is in yellow. You've looked at this language before. I highlighted it in yellow because it doesn't appear in the Senate version. And this is that provision that law enforcement officer when when the law enforcement officer knows that the subject's conduct is the results of some type of impairment. Medical condition, developmental disability, physical limitation, language barrier, drug or alcohol impairment or other factor beyond subjects control. The officer has to take that information into account in determining whether or not to use force. And if they do use force, what amount of force is appropriate? You can keep going Peggy, please. So now we're getting into subsection C. This is the use of deadly force section. And all of this is the same language that you have seen in the drafts that have been before you. You can keep going Peggy. So subsection two here, this is the explanation of the word necessary. Again, this is language that you've seen in the previous drafts you've looked at. It's in yellow because it's not included in the Senate version. Same with subdivision three, that's that provision that law enforcement have to stop using deadly force. Law enforcement shall cease to use of deadly force as soon as the subject is under the officer's control or no longer poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person. So that language is a little bit different than what you saw in the last version. They changed, they changed some words there to make it that language more closely aligned with the standard for the use of deadly forces set forth in section C one. You can keep going. Section four and five are the same as the Senate, same as Senate language except for swapped in order. You can keep going. This is all the same as you've seen before. And if you'd stop here Peggy, this is another, this is a change from the last version you saw. Subdivision five was that prohibition on law enforcement use of prohibited restraint. So in the Senate version, subdivision five says law enforcement shall not use a prohibited restraint on a person for any reason. The last version of the House bill had that same language in but that was removed as a result of the floor amendment. So the House pass version no longer contains that prohibition on prohibited restraint within the standards for law enforcement use of force. So now we're going to move into this section two. So this is the amendment to the justifiable homicide statute. You scroll down just a little bit more Peggy. So we can see that sub subdivision three here. Thank you. So this is the language subdivision three. Remember, this is the language that in current statute applies to law enforcement. So the change made here says that law enforcement officers must be using force and compliance with those standards that we set out in section one in order to be able to use this justifiable homicide defense. And it refers specifically to the standards set out in B2, 4 and 5 and C1 through 4. So we talked about that a little bit at the last hearing. Section three, these are the repeals of the sunsets that were enacted in S219. So if you remember law enforcement used the prohibited restraint. That's the new crime S219 sunset that that new provision in July of next year. And at the same time at sunset subdivision three of the justifiable homicide statute. So what section three does is it repeals those sunsets so they will no longer sunset in July of next year. Thank you Peggy. So section four, this I believe is new language that you haven't seen yet. This is a session law directive to DPS and the executive executive director of racial equity to report back to the standing committees in February of next year on their on the process that they understood to create the uniform statewide policy on law enforcement use of force that was directed as a part of the executive order. So if you stop here Peggy, you'll see that report has to specifically include the process that was undertaken, including a list of all of the community representatives and other stakeholders that were present and included in the development of that policy. And how many times they met number of times is for number of times that the stakeholders met any opportunity given for public comment. And then also on the final proposed policy. Section 4a, this is a new section that was you haven't seen yet. So this adds a subdivision to the minimum training standard statute that specifically provides that the criminal justice training council shall not offer or approve any training on the use of a prohibited restraint as it's defined elsewhere in the bill except for training this design to identify and prevent the use of prohibited restraint. And then lastly if you scroll down to the I think the last page Peggy the effective date section provides the standards that are set out in section one for law enforcement use of force and the changes to the justifiable homicide statute take effect on January 1st of next year. I think the previous version you saw the standards took effect on July 1st. So they moved that back a little bit and that's it. Thank you for doing that Peggy. You're muted. Commissioner Schirling is here if you would like to hear the administration's or the commissioner of public safety's concerns with the house version he's here to offer that but also to offer some alternatives. Good. I offer him a few minutes here to talk about is there concerns with what the house passed version. Commissioner. Good morning Senator. Thank you for the opportunity to participate briefly. I'd probably make the most sense to respond to any committee questions or inquiries. The overall response to the house version is that it differs substantially from the Senate's past version by adding a variety of language that will create uncertainty and an inability to craft training also observed that I believe it takes effect on January 1st of 2021 and it will take us months to craft our best guess at what the training would have to look like as a result of the House bill if it were to become law. I'm happy to do a line by line if it's useful but I know you're limited in time. I'm not sure that's the most constructive use of my feedback. We have a copy of your email from to me last night which basically says that. Correct. So we took another really hard look at the Senate's version yesterday and believe that it's pretty close. Again, well we think the best approach to this is to direct a policy overlay. In the absence of that, the Senate's version with a couple of small tweaks one of which the House made so it's really three additional things would put us on the most stable footing to be able to operationalize what's being directed to be able to craft training to use the basis of the extensive training that's available now. Hundreds of slides and over 100 pages of written material that is in existence today on training for the use of deadly force that would be able to be directly ported in large part with the slightly tweaked version of the Senate's bill but if we were if you were to adopt the House version we would have to take a wholesale new look at literally hundreds of pages of material and then do our best to guess at what the courts may interpret much of this new language to be to mean excuse me. I will just add I did hear the committee mention that there are some sections that will lead to second guessing and we concur with that that the courts have been very thoughtful in the way that they've crafted direction to law enforcement both nationally and in Vermont in a manner that directs doing things appropriately but stops short of second guessing fast moving events on the ground that you often hear the phrase you can't make this stuff up but if you've ever spent time responding to calls in a police car you really can't make up the pace the types of things that you encounter and the fast moving nature of the evolution of things that we're consistently trying to slow down but that is not always in the control of the responding officers. Questions for the commissioner. Thank you very much. Okay. Leave this right back where we started. I don't know if this is time the time to weigh in. So I have to say that and I think you know this senator Sears but I don't think the rest of the committee knows where I stand on this but I have kind of two major issues with it and one is the bill itself and one is the process that we went through to get here and I'm just going to do a kind of a couple couple instances here around the bill and it we have heard that it makes major standards to the currently the standards that are currently applied by the courts. Now the house told us that it doesn't that it merely codifies the current standards but then on the other hand we heard that it does have a made it does make major changes. I have no time to decide which is right here. Does it make major standard or major changes or does it not because we don't have the time to do that and I know that lots of people have weighed in. So I also have a problem with setting the standards before the policy and think that but I know that I watched the house version the other day and I also was in a meeting the other day and I know one of the things that was said was that we need to have guidelines and parameters before we can have a policy set and I think we're selling our law enforcement community very short here by assuming that they would not have set in place the standards in their policy that we would want to see. So I have some problems with that and one of the things that I fear around that is that we will end up having those law enforcement officials who really are trying to make changes and are trying to move in the direction where we're hopefully moving are going to be so beaten down that they're going to leave and we're going to end up with law enforcement officers that are not moving or don't want to move in the what I consider the right direction. I will just one thing about training we have asked in 124 we asked the academy to look at all their training what is necessary what isn't necessary how they need to change it what they need to do do they need to add more weeks to training do they need to so we've asked them to do that and this is clearly part of that review that they would do. I just want to make a couple comments about the procedure that the changes were being made so rapidly that I couldn't I couldn't keep up with them and I watched the House versions I mean I watched the House committee meetings and there were changes being made as they were speaking and I it was hard to keep up and we didn't even know which version we were addressing and now there are floor amendments and there's other things in here that are new to us today and the House did give us a long list of witnesses but we didn't hear from those witnesses and I don't know what they said when they testified so the fact that there were all those witnesses is meaningless to me because I don't know what they said when they testified and there was a lot of I thought it was very confusing the way there was a lot of interplay between 219, 119, and 124 and things were moving back and forth so I the only section of this bill that I can support is section four so there are there you have it. Make me. Dallas. So I'm wondering maybe Bryn said this already and I missed it but what are the two amendments specifically. So there was a there was a floor amendment that had four separate instances of amendment that I believe was the results of working with members of the of the Senate on achieving. Yeah I I asked for several amendments one was to ban prohibited restraint from training. Okay. The other was the change to the definition of totality of the circumstances to simplify that and make it so that definition was the same as the Senate version. Okay. And the other was to add the training requirement and also to take out reasonably should have known in the provision that would impose a duty on law enforcement to include information about whether or not the subject's conduct was due to some kind of impairment in their decision about whether or not to use force so they have to use all facts known to the officer not reasonably known or that the officer should have known. Okay. Thank you. And also the one other was the effective date section. There was also the Donahue amendment. Exactly and then there was a second separate floor amendment introduced by a representative Donahue that removed that provision B6 or C6 that would prohibit law enforcement from using a prohibited restraint for any reason. So that language that was in the Senate version was struck. And I'll just say about that. I I wasn't necessarily happy to see that go. I don't think it hurt the bill but I think that in a way spoke to what Joe was saying last time out which is that it seemed contradictory to have a sentence that said you will not use one for any reason and then to allow defenses in court of the action. So getting rid of that I thought made the bill. It wasn't as strong on prohibited restraint but it's a little more coherent now I think. So if we're using this time to weigh in I will have to admit that I think the House version has been moving in a better direction. I am very much sympathetic to Jeanette's argument that we haven't had time to hear all the witnesses. I am also sympathetic to Commissioner Schirling's argument that this will require a substantial amount of rebuilding their training materials in order to accommodate the language. The words feasible and reasonable to me make perfect sense from a criminal defense lawyer's perspective because I can make arguments to a jury if I'm sitting next to a police officer who has been charged and get into finer details about what was going on there and whether or not the officer should have been expected to use force or not. Having some sympathy for Commissioner Schirling I have a suggestion if we're going to adopt the House version and that is we push the effective date out to say July 1 of next year. I am not interested in pushing through a bill that places law enforcement at a terrible situation in trying to not only come up with reports but reconstitute their entire training manual in order to make sure they're on top of this. So giving them seven, eight months to do that makes a lot of sense to me. It also gives the legislature an opportunity to make tweaks if they recognize right away that it is impossible to do X, Y, or Z. I'm not sure politically any of us is in a position to say let's do nothing. That part doesn't leave me comfortable at all. I think that there is a mindset out there and this begins to change the mindset but I want to make sure that when we do this we do it right. I can read the House language. I think it's better than our original language but I want to accommodate the potential problematic provisions that might force law enforcement into a bad situation and I think extending the effective date is the best way to do that under all circumstances. I'll leave it at that. Mr. Chair, may I? Joe, if I could just ask, I don't want to misunderstand what you're saying, are you saying that you could concur with the House bill with a change in effective date? Yes. If that gets your vote, I could go along with that. Mind you, having said that, I'm still very sympathetic to Jeanette's argument and somewhat angry that we are literally put into this position at the last minute. But I think the issue is too important to just leave out their hanging for the next legislative session to begin and I see this as a work in progress and pushing that effective date out gives people the ability to continue that work. So, if I can- You're talking sections one and two, right? Joe? Yeah. Just to put my two cents in, I think the House began in a place I didn't like, but then they consistently moved in the direction of our bill and I think they did that with a sense that, as Joe just said, we have to act on this issue. It's always a question about, do you try to make the bill something that the administration will enjoy signing or not? I think in this case, given what we're talking about, which is to use Commissioner Sterling's phrase, a statutory overlay on public safety and the police writ large, I honestly, I have a hard time believing that we could produce a bill that they would be happy with. What they've made clear again and again is that they would prefer to have it be left to policymaking and training changes. I don't think we're in a place where that will be enough. The reason for that is that we again and again have found ourselves in a place where use of force by the police is creating outrage in the general public. Now, I'll just add parenthetically, I've been referring to the Jason Belivance case in Burlington throughout this process. Burlington just announced that they've more or less reached a settlement with him to move him off the force on October 5th in exchange for a large payout. I think there's legislation that needs to be written next session to deal with the idea that union contracts protect people who have used excessive force and then you have taxpayers on the hook for big payouts for someone who really should be off the force for other reasons. I agree with Joe. I think this is a work in progress. I do think the House bill as it stands gives me a lot of what I was after in the Senate bill and some things that we didn't do. I really like the training ban. I think that that's an absolute necessity. That actually came from Terry Lynn. From Terry Lynn. That's CSD Justice Sutter, remember? Yeah. Well, I like it. I think it's as the House bill stands now with that training ban and the other standards that it puts in place, I think it sits very comfortably beside 219. If Joe can vote for it with pushing those sections effective data out, I can go along with that. The only thing I would want to say is that that involves proposal of further amendment or I suppose the House could be asked whether or not they would amend on third reading. Have they passed third reading yet, Brynne? Yes, they have. Okay. So if we do concur with further proposal of amendment to change the date, I would hope that I would only go along with that if that's all we're changing. I wouldn't want to get into trying to rewrite wording or remove or add sections in a concur for the proposal amendment. But so that's a long way of saying I support what Joe proposed. Well, that would be going back on what I had suggested that the House do this as of January 1. But I can live with it. If that's what it takes to get three votes. And what was the date that repeal of the just file homicide was in 219? Was that October or July? July of next year. So that would so having this take effect July 1 would be would be in line with that, right? So this 119, the latest version has the repeal of that sunset taking effect on passage. Okay. Right. But that is sort of neither here nor there because that would go ahead and take effect on passage, but it wouldn't have a sunset until next July. Right. I just want to go back to something Jeanette said earlier and that is the hope of law enforcement not to have a statutory overlay of policy. I don't believe it's law enforcement's prerogative established policy. I think that's our job. And I know it's uncomfortable for a cultural change. But the nutshell is we are responsible for the policy push to make that cultural change. And my hope here in extending the rollout time is to give law enforcement enough time to deal with what we have decided is going to be the policy change. Jeanette, I think you were next. Thank you. I think that is true, Joe. And we have almost always asked law enforcement to come back to the legislature with the policy, so that the legislature ends up approving the policy. And I think that that could be the case here and probably I don't know if it is in the bill or not that they're to come back with their policy. But I do think that we are, it is our job to do it. And I think that they've heard where we want to go. I'm not sure. And I just, I'm going to say this, just this one last vast thing here. And we keep talking about all the really horrible cases out there of misuse of force. And there are some really horrible cases. But I think we also need to remember that just the Vermont State Police alone last year had 115,000 different incidents that they responded to, which ended up being a little over 300,000 different people in those incidences. And only 183 times was there any force used beyond compliant handcuffing. So that's a half a percent of the time that that was used. So we are, in my opinion, and I know that this is politically probably suicide for me. But in my opinion, we are responding to some really egregious cases here that and we're letting ourselves make policy quickly because of the optics out there. And I just think that I want to have this discussion, but I want to have this discussion in real time when we can all sit and have it and have the discussion with people in the room and have it in a thorough and meaningful way. And I don't believe that we've been able to do that in this case. And I, whether I agree with some of the things that are in the bill or not, I don't think we've had that the procedure has been conducive to being thoughtful and anyway, I'll just leave it at that. Any other comments? I take responsibility for scheduling the committee, trying to schedule witnesses and trying to keep abreast of what is going on in the other body. We tried to pass legislation last June, if you remember, S219 and S119. We ended up separating them at the request of the other body in order to give them more time to take witnesses and hear from witnesses. They did. They held three public hearings. They held a number of hearings on the bill. In my view, what they came back with is some changes to our version of S119, but they're actually today closer to our version of S119 than they were a week ago. We're in the middle at, doesn't, I don't need to say this, but we all know we're in the middle of a pandemic. Nobody's ever tried to legislate in the middle of a pandemic that I know of, at least since 1900s, 1918 and 19. And we're trying to do that remotely, which doesn't afford us the same opportunities to chat amongst ourselves to see where everybody's at. And we have a split in the committee. I'm ready to support Joe's motion to concur with further proposals of amendment that would change the date. Now, my preference would be to do a bill at this point that would have public safety and other groups on board, but I don't see it as that being possible. I would not be surprised to see the governor. You know this bill? And while we can't worry about that and what we do, we're at a point where our options are three, concur with further proposal amendment, as I said in the beginning, incur or ask for a committee of conference. I've heard Joe, I think, is a motion to concur with further proposal. I don't know if you see Commissioner Shirley has his hand up. I did not see that. Commissioner, you wanted to comment? That's fine. Thank you. Although I'm not sure it's helpful at this stage of the committee's deliberation, but I wanted to respond to Senator Baruch's comments that we do very much understand that the General Assembly sets the parameters under which we operate. All we're suggesting is that there's a mechanism to do that that the General Assembly has used on a variety of occasions before to direct the development of policy that then comes back for essentially concurrence by the General Assembly. And to the point that there may be a future look at collective bargaining agreements and accountability, that's certainly in your purview, but I would point to 124 and historic work done on the part of Senate government operations led by Senator White to ensure accountability through the decertification process. You already have a mechanism in place to make modifications and decertify officers for violations of use force policies, especially if you go to the extent of directing a statewide policy and then tying compliance with that policy to decertification, the mechanism already exists. So I say those things just to illustrate that we're not standing in the way. We are offering a variety of alternatives using mechanisms that the General Assembly has already crafted, both on other topics and on this topic as a way forward, both in this arena, but also in officer certification, and if you'll recall in accountability for agencies as well. So I'm not sure that's neither here nor there, but I appreciate the opportunity to tell you that. Thank you. So, Alice, did you have a comment? I have a question with regard to concurring with further proposal of amendment. Is that I mean, it's not clear to me whether Joe could just do a simple amendment and then the thought then the next vote would be do we concur with this further proposal of amendment or can he or would he be amending it prior to that vote and there would be a separate I believe the way it would work is that we are concurring with further proposal amendment. The amendment is offered and voted up or down by the body, assuming that it's supported. It would then go to the house as concurring with further proposal amendment. They would have to have a vote on it to concur. So we would have one vote and they would have one vote. Right. We would have one vote only, not a separate vote of Joe. I don't believe so, but we could check with Bloomer. We should check, please. Maggie, can you check with John Bloomer? Let's see if he's available. I believe I'm right, actually. Yeah, because what's the meeting? If he was. I mean, I might be wrong, but I believe the way it works is the house appears, the house bill appears on the calendar. And then there's the lieutenant governor looks to the chair of the committee for what is the direction the committee wants to pursue. Dick would offer the concur with further proposal of amendment explain it and we'd have a single vote. Yes, I'm concerned with draft draft and it proposed to the house to concur with further proposal amendment. And that's that one line change. Okay, I'm back in the committee process. Right. My question is that I understood Alice to say can Joe make his move to amend it with the new date and we can vote on that. And then do we? Okay. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you. Alice. Do you mean in any committee, Alice? Yes. I know. Senator Benning has moved that we concur with further proposal amendment. That amendment would be that the date is extended for sections one and two to July 1, 2021. I, okay. I misunderstood that again. I thought that Alice said can Joe move to amend and then have a vote on that and then move to concur with that new amendment. So that's two votes. Is that? Yes, I'm looking for two votes in the committee. Okay. Joe has moved that we amend the effective date of the bill of sections one and two. I need to be specific. Sections one and two to July 1, 2021. Oh, I understand, Alice. You're always one step ahead of us. Is there any further discussion? Now we maybe have John Bloomer. I don't know. No, I don't think we need him anymore. We don't need him.  No, this is a committee issue. Absolutely. I'll tell him maybe we don't need him. Right. So I thought Alice was talking about the floor vote. So is there any further discussion? Hearing none. Peggy, could you please call the roll on Senator Benning's amendment to change the date in sections one and two? Yes. Senator White. Yes. Senator Baruth. Yes. Senator Benning. Yes. Senator Nica. Yes. Senator Sears. Yes. Now the question would be a report to recommend to the Senate that we concur with further proposal amendment that we just voted on, I believe. And Marley is barking his approval in the background. So moved. So Senator Baruth has moved that we report favorably as amended. I think it's, we report with further, we concur with further proposal amendment S119 as we just voted. Is there any further discussion of that? Hearing none. Peggy, would you please call the roll? Senator White. No. Senator Baruth. Yes. Senator Benning. Yes. Senator Nica. No. Senator Sears. Yes. Okay. Sure. I'm not going to make everybody happy, but I will do my best to prepare a floor report for, is it today or tomorrow? No. I can get you the materials for today. Great. Okay. Ryn, you'll send me the, to me too. Yes. Would you send me the section by section? Do we have the bill changed side by, the newest side by side? Please, the, the, the side, without the change of date, the side by side that we've been, that you just showed on the screen. Sure. I don't have that. At least I can't find it. And obviously I can understand the change in date. So, do we have the bill? I'm not sure if it's on the calendar. It's on, I believe it would be on the notice calendar. It may be tomorrow before we take it up. Okay. I think the plan was to be ready for tomorrow. I have to go back to Tim's message. I thank you all very much. I was going to say this has been a tremendously, a tremendously rewarding year. We had a tremendous vote on the floor yesterday on a bill that many of us have worked on, although it was not a unanimous decision of this committee. We have finally put action and regulate the bed. I'm sure we'll be dealing with it. Whoever's here next year will be dealing with it.  And I guess it's ivory now. Well, could I just take a minute and thank the three of you, Dick, Jeanette and Joe, the tax and regulate bill. I've never seen a bill be dogged that much and dragged and slowed down. And you guys just kept at it and kept at it. So I really appreciate it. Thank you. And Senator Sears, it did make the front page of the reformer. And climate climate change made the second page or third. Of course, they credited Campion. So right. Yeah, that's true. Absolutely. Yeah, but it was nice. It can't be the crime of me. Well, you know, we will meet tomorrow on S24. I don't know what that will be an interesting mess. Peggy, could you see if Jim Baker is available for tomorrow along with either representative Edmunds or representative Shaw to explain that? Yes. S24. And you might also I mean, it's a Rutland Bridge. So I don't know what whether they approved the Rutland Bridge name or but you might want to ask Susanna Davis. Okay, because I believe it, it has to do with systemic racism and sexism in corrections. And for some reason, they thought they needed legislature legislative approval to look at it. Well, your committee or my committee? No, it's not in my committee. We don't have it. I just heard that from somebody on the corrections House Corrections Committee. Oh, what's the topic of this bill? Racial equity within the correction of the correction system. So somehow the house pulled out of the House of Institutions and Corrections Committee um, added to a bridge bill, um, a whole bunch of stuff on corrections. Yeah. Since corrections policy is our purview, we need to look at it. But I mean, we had no testimony on it. I didn't even know. I knew it was coming a week ago. I heard about it. And I'm concerned about what it might do. So yeah, if you can get any of those folks, Peggy, that would be great for tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. Yep. All right. Thank you all very much. I'm going to go make some lasagna and get ready for the committee and bring a wait for the version from you. Okay. All right. Thank you. Bye.