►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
morning,
I
call
the
Senate
standing
committee
on
Senate
standing
committee
on
Judiciary
together
for
our
fifth
meeting.
I've
got
a
number
of
bills
here
and
before
members
complain
or
fuss
about
the
length
of
the
agenda.
Just
remember,
the
chair
gets
lots
of
requests
to
hear
lots
of
bills,
and
one
day
it
might
be
your
bill.
A
So
don't
fuss
about
a
long
agenda.
I
I
get
the
bills
and
I
hear
them
as
fast
as
I
can,
if
I
find
them
worthy
of
moving
forward
and
we're
stuck
with
what
we
got.
We've
got
to
go
a
little
bit
out
of
order
to
accommodate
our
special
friend
here
in
the
audience
our
canine
representative
Wesley.
If
you
want
to
come
on
up
and
while
you're
coming
up
Chelsea,
if
you
would
call
the
roll
thanks,
man.
A
Seeing
that
we
have
a
quorum,
we're
authorized
to
do
business,
just
a
reminder
to
everybody
all
presenters
in
the
olden
days
with
a
two-hour
meeting.
This
agenda
would
give
you
a
little
bit
more
breathing
room.
We
don't
have
a
lot
of
breathing
room
today,
so
please
keep
whatever
testimony
you
prepared
as
short
and
as
concise
as
possible.
A
C
Thank
you,
Mr,
chairman
good
morning
to
all
of
you
in
the
committee.
Thank
you
for
having
us
it's
a
pleasure
being
here
with
KSP
and
and
May,
and
so
this
this
bill's
House
Bill
115.
All
it
does
is
enlarges
the
definition
of
of
this
this
canine
unit,
and
so
we
also
have
fish
and
wildlife
in
full
support
of
this
bill.
C
C
What's
your
name
I'm,
so
sorry,
Angela
Parker.
So
we
appreciate
Angela
and
all
the
work
that
she
does.
You
can
go
ahead
and
speak.
D
Good
morning,
thank
you
so
much
for
accommodating
our
schedule.
This
morning,
I'm
Angela
Parker
with
Kentucky
State,
Police
legislative
liaison.
This
bill
simply
adds
the
electronics
device
detection
canines
to
assault
on
a
service
animal
and
also
adds
a
generic
definition
for
police
canines
that
are
in
service
to
law
enforcement.
This
bill
will
ensure
that
these
canines
are
protected
if
any
harm
comes
to
them,
while
they
are
in
performing
their
jobs
at
the
moment,
if
any
harm
is
done
to
these
animals,
while
they're
doing
their
jobs.
There's
no
Avenue
for
accountability,
motion.
E
F
E
A
C
I
So
we
have
two
actually
May
and
we
also
have
Cam
who
couldn't
make
it
today,
but
their
electronic
detection
canines,
and
we
are
part
of
the
internet
crimes
against
children
task
force.
So
when
we
go
to
a
residence
executing
search
warrants
for
our
investigations,
we're
looking
for
electronic
devices,
so
these
dogs-
they
not
only
help
us
find
things
that
could
have
been
hidden
from
us.
They
help
us
find
things
faster
as
well,
even
if
they're
not
hidden
can.
A
J
A
I
F
I
I
So
they're
kind
of
conditioned
to
be
calm
like
this
anyway,
because
they're
actually
their
career
change
dogs,
which
is
a
nice
way
to
say
they
flunked
out
of
service
school,
so
their
their
initial
intention
when
they
were
raised
from
puppies,
was
to
be
service
animals
and
when
they
don't
complete
that
program,
the
man
in
Indiana
his
name's
Todd
Jordan.
He
takes
these
dogs
and
and
makes
them
ESD
canines.
So
that's
also
part
of
her
job
is
to
be
a
comfort,
dog
and
cam
as
well.
C
If
I
can
add
Mr
chairman
there's
only
two
of
these
dogs
in
the
state
of
Kentucky
and
so
for
their
safety
and
their
protection,
that's
why
we're
trying
to
bring
the
safety
of
these
dogs
under
the
definition
or
the
KRS
statue?
That's
already
in
place.
A
All
right,
representative
Wesley,
your
bill
is
passed
unanimously
with
favorable
expression
and
shall
be
on
consent.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
all
right,
representative
Banta.
You
want
to
come
on
up
for
House,
Bill,
78.
A
H
Storm
commissioner
Kentucky
Fish
and
Wildlife
Mr
chairman
the
core
of
House
Bill
144,
is
to
help
stop
the
expanding
trend
of
government
electronic
surveillance
by
requiring
that
surveillance
devices
can
only
be
placed
on
private,
open
land
with
consent
or
a
warrant.
Most
people
think
that's
already
covered
and
prohibited
by
the
Fourth
Amendment
the
prohibition
against
unreasonable
search
and
seizure.
M
A
A
N
You
and
thank
you
for
hearing
this
representative
Kim
Banta
from
District
63..
This
is
a
bill
you've
heard
before
the
prosecutors
Association
wants
it.
They
inadvertently
left
out
Aunt
uncle
and
first
cousins
in
the
incest
bill.
It's
already
illegal,
to
marry
first
cousins
in
Kentucky.
This
is
just
kind
of
getting
everything
together
for
prosecutors
in
case
in
case
cases
come
to
them
so.
A
F
F
A
F
A
I
know:
we've
got
folks
here
at
Senator.
Howe
is
here
on
behalf
of
Representative
Flannery
on
House,
Bill,
83
and
I.
Believe
Senator
you've
got
some
folks
with
you
and
I
know.
Representative
Dawson.
My
good
friend
is
here
with
some
additional
language
that
was
included.
That
is
included
in
the
substitute.
A
Q
Thank
you
Mr
chairman.
This
is
House
Bill,
83,
Jason,
Howe,
first
Senate
District
as
amended.
It
does
a
number
of
things,
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
and
let
everybody
introduce
themselves
and
talk
about
their
part
of
it.
R
There
you
go
yes,
thank
you:
I'm
Danielle,
Wilson
I'm,
a
past
president
of
the
Kentucky
Land
Title
Association
and
I'm.
Also
an
underwriter
with
first
American
out
of
Louisville
House
Bill
83
has
four
sections
to
it.
The
first
section
is
regard
to
the
statute
of
limitations
on
judgment
liens.
This
actually
passed
in
the
house
in
2020
77
to
14,
with
representative
Fisher,
carrying
that
for
us.
R
This
one
essentially
sets
the
statute
limitations
from
the
date
of
recording
to
10
years,
while
allowing
active
creditors
to
extend
that
such
limitations
another
five
years
with
a
filing
in
the
clerk's
office.
What
this
effectively
does
is
clean
up
old
liens
and
expedites
real
estate
closings,
the
Realtors
associations
and
the
bankers.
Associations
are
in
agreement
with
this
bill.
R
R
E
Currently,
I
guess,
if
you
have
a
a
judgment,
you
know
you
can
renew
that
I
guess
what
it
used
to
be
15
years
now,
I
think
it's
10,
but
you
know,
if
you
I,
guess,
attempt
to
collect
at
year
nine
you
can
renew
it
for
another
10
years.
Does
this
do
away
with
that?
Actually.
T
E
Okay,
but
all
right.
A
O
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
appreciate
this
bill
because
I
don't
know
if
people
really
understand
how
significant
it
is,
but
I
want
to
check
on
something
Central
how
you
and
I
talked
about
if
the
parties
in
a
probate
matter,
which
is
where
there
is
a
will-
or
there
is
intestate
succession
property-
that
if
the
parties
agree
that
are
the
recipients
under
whatever
track
you
go,
the
statute
sets
up
that
even
the
agreement
by
all
recipients
that
you,
and
especially
where
time
to
sell,
is
critical
because
of
interest
rates
and
things
like
that.
O
O
Because
is
that
sufficient
by
an
agreed
order,
because
I
had
one
of
the
underwriters
require
me
to
have
an
affidavit,
not
just
an
agreed
order
signed,
you
had
to
have
a
sworn
and
subscribed
to
affidavit
that
they
wanted
and
what
is
technically
called
The
Nut
pro-tunk
order,
which
was
some
people
don't
get
into
that,
but
one?
O
How
is
that
effectuated
and
then
two
because
I
don't
do
title.
I
know
that
a
lot
of
practitioners
don't
even
realize
that
section's
there.
So
if
you
actually
got
an
agreed
order
and
judges
don't
realize
it
and
they
sell
the
property
on
day
15
and
haven't
allowed
the
right
of
appeal
to
pass.
You
now
have
a
defect
in
your
title.
We
talked
about
a
statute
of
limitations
to
clear
the
title
up
is
the
statute
of
limitations
issue
taken
up
in
this.
Q
Q
Yeah
now,
where
you
get
into
the
affidavit
part
with
Underwriters
different
Underwriters,
have
different
ways
approaching
with
this.
Daniel
can
talk
more
to
that,
obviously
than
I
can,
but
but
they're
going
to
want
some
sort
of
of
additional
additional
work
on
that
and
I
think
attorneys
that
deal
in
this
space
will
as
well.
Some
and
changing
that
void
to
voidable
means
that
if
there
is
a
challenge,
you
can
come
back
and
look
at
it,
but
it,
but
it
allows
us
to
move.
It
allows
us
to
move
faster,
and
this
came.
Q
This
has
some
retroactivity
language
in
it
as
well,
because
you're
correct
so
many
so
many
people
don't
understand
that
you
have
to
wait
that
30
days
and
some
people
do
understand
and
just
do
it
anyway.
So
we're
cleaning
up
a
blue
million
potential
defects
of
Title.
By
doing
this
as
well.
O
O
Good
distinction,
because
some
ACT,
if
it's
unconstitutional
it,
is
void,
AB
initio.
In
my
opinion,
then
other
things
are
avoidable,
so
it
happens
on
day
15
you're
waiting
for-
and
this
is
this-
is
going
to
be
pre
this
legislation,
when
does
it
become
avoidable.
R
Senator
Stivers,
when
the
current
statue
says
void,
I'm
an
underwriter
with
first
American
and
I,
see
that
of
the
chain.
I
automatically
require
you're
correct,
it's
a
defect
and
title
it
could
be
20
years
ago
and
we
have
to
go
back
and
clean
that
up.
If
we
change
the
wording
to
avoidable,
then
it
gives
an
option
for
the
parties
to
become
an
agreement
to
waive
that
30
days
and
as
an
underwriter
I
would
be
comfortable
with
an
affidavit
from
all
the
air
saying
we're
okay
with
this
okay.
R
U
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
I,
wanted
to
talk
to
you
about
the
committee
sub
on
page
10.,
beginning
at
lines.
15.
I.
U
Regarding
landlords
who
may
have
a
tenant
who
undertakes
to
renovate
a
piece
of
property,
this
is
you
man
and
if
you
don't
mind,
if
you
could
just
go
through
kind
of
that
explanation
there
and
the
notice
requirement
to
the
landlord,
as
opposed
to
I,
think
it's
on
page
10
of
the
sub
section
four.
U
To
I
think
it's!
Oh
thank
you
sub
three
beginning
at
line
15
that
okay,
do
the
rest
of
the
page.
U
S
S
With
this
right
here,
the
the
what
we
would
do,
the
the
the
tenant
would
have
to
notify.
The
contractor
that
it
is
stated
in
the
lease
that
the
property
owner
must
be
must
give
permission
to
be
able
to
do
the
do
any
any
renovations.
K
The
colleague
to
the
left
may
have
answered
this,
but
in
the
past
we've
entertained
legislation
that
was
designed
to
address
the
fact
that
some
of
these
properties
in
this
state
have
multiple
multiple
heirs
and
to
actually
find
out
within
30
days.
Who
has
an
interest
in
this
property
may
not
be
doable
so
my
questions,
one
are
notice.
I'll
do
notify
people
that
they
may
have
a
right
to
something,
and
then
second
of
all
does
this
bill.
How
does
this
bill
address?
That
issue?
Are
those
people
after
30
days
just
out.
Q
First
of
all,
the
the
notice
part
that
you're
talking
about
for
errors
really
takes
space
apart
place
as
part
of
the
probate
process.
On
the
front
end,
so
everybody's
everybody
that
we
know
about
is
in
the
game
and
it's
not
it's
no
easy
undertaking
sometime
to
to
identify
and
locate
all
of
these
errors,
it's
needle
in
the
haystack
sometimes.
Q
But
once
you
work
through
that
part
in
the
probate
process,
then
you
can
go
ahead
and
move
and
they'll
already
have
noticed,
so
it
basically
flips
the
notice
portion
to
the
beginning,
because
when
you
file
them
you'd
file,
a
motion
to
sell
the
property
and
submit
your
order
that
puts
everybody
on
notice,
so
they
so
they've
got
time
before
a
judge
is
ordered,
actually
works
better
in
my
opinion,
because
it
focuses
on
giving
preemptive
rights
rather
than
reactive
rights.
Q
After
after
an
order
has
been
entered
and
as
far
as
after
the
30
days,
then
yes,
but
that's
the
way.
It
is
now
until
you've
got
30
days
post
order
to
to
contest
and
otherwise
then
the
property
could
be
sold.
Otherwise,
you
could
never
sell
a
piece
of
property
with
any
degree
of
certainty
out
of
a
out
of
a
probate,
and
then
you
know
if
you
have
anything
to
add
to
that.
Please
do.
R
Q
A
A
B
F
A
A
W
You,
chairman
and
committee
I,
get
I
guess
about
eight
months
ago
the
city
of
Louisville
and
the
police
department
and
their
representation
came
and
asked
that
this
program
and
that
that's
in
embedded
in
this
bill,
House
Bill
207,
be
implemented
down
here
and
upon
investigation
and
whatnot
I
found
out
that
almost
every
Police
Department
in
America
is
going
to
eventually
be
doing
things
like
this
and
I'll.
Let
the
experts
start
explaining
that
yeah.
X
Yes,
my
name
is
Sean
baller
I'm,
the
executive
director
for
the
Kentucky
police,
Chiefs,
Association
and
Mr
chairman
I
I
do
apologize
on
behalf
of
the
police,
Chiefs
committee
members.
Listen.
X
X
Jump
right
on
in,
as
you
can
see,
we
we
feel
this
is
extremely
important.
What
this
bill
does
and
I'm
going
to
cut
my
stuff
in
half,
as
you
asked,
is
it
essentially
it
gives
us
the
opportunity
to
take
a
look
at
officers
that
may
be
having
issues
and
get
them
help
before
it
becomes
an
issue.
It
does
not.
A
M
Thank
you
Mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
Chief
and
representative
for
bringing
this
forward.
You
know
these
programs
are
already
in
existence
in
a
lot
of
places
and
but
I
just
did
want.
I
was
reading
over
the
bill
before
I
came
in
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
an
observation.
I
obviously
support
the
bill,
but
when
I
look
at
when
I
look
at
it
because,
as
you
know,
chief
police
work
can
be
pretty
dicey.
M
Yes,
sir,
and
when
I
look
at
the
exceptions
of
confidentiality
that
are
in
this
bill,
I
think
it's
important
that
police
officers
when
they
abuse
these
services
are
aware
of
these
exceptions,
because
at
times
things
get
pretty
dicey.
That's
the
only
way.
I
know
how
to
put
it,
but
I
do
support
the
Bill.
Thank.
K
My
no
vote,
Yes
ma'am
I,
think
this
is
an
excellent
bill.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
the
police
officers
that
work
in
my
district
understand
this
is
in
no
way
shape
or
form
an
intention
to
try
to
figure
you
out
or
or
put
you
at
risk
or
put
You
In
Harm's
Way.
This
bill
is
designed
so
that
you
are
able
to
maintain
your
privacy
and
hopefully,
hopefully
get
help
before
it
becomes
a
real
problem.
K
P
M
A
Y
Thank
you
chairman.
My
name
is
Amy
Nabors
and
I
represent
the
21st
house.
District
House
Bill
338
would
allow
kentuckians
age,
70
or
older
to
opt
out
of
jury
duty
under
the
current
statute.
These
individuals
must
request
to
be
excused
from
the
jury
pool
and
those
requests
must
be
reviewed
by
a
judge,
automobile.
V
Thank
you
for
bringing
this
I
just
want
to
understand
something.
I
I'm,
I'm,
I'm
I,
feel
two
different
ways
about
this.
One
one
is
that
the
70
year
old
is,
of
course,
now
I'm
39.,
but.
V
70
year,
olders
are
some
of
the
most
intelligent,
experienced,
calm,
level-headed
human
beings
walk
in
the
face
of
the
Earth,
and
you
know
from
my
standpoint
it
just
the
value
that's
given
to
the
the
system.
The
judicial
system
in
that
particular
regard
sort
of
takes
it
sort
of
lessens
the
ability
to
have
a
concentration
of
that
wisdom
at
the
table.
So
that's
what
makes
me
a
little
bit
shaky
about
that.
Can
you
push
back
and
bring
Comfort
to
my
soul.
Y
I
will
attempt
to,
of
course,
this
just
allows
an
individual
to
choose
to
opt
out
or
not
with
every
chance
that
they
have
to
serve
on
on
a
jury.
You
know
maybe
the
first
time
they
get
the
notice
they're
not
feeling
well
based
on
whatever
health
condition
that
they're
dealing
with,
and
this
would
just
allow
them
to
exempt
themselves
for
that
particular
jury
call
without
requiring
any
statement
from
a
physician
next
time
they
receive
it.
Maybe
they're
feeling
better
that
that
go
around
and
could
serve
on
that
jury.
V
M
M
Look
at
my
friends
in
the
public
defender's
office,
back
in
the
back
prosecutors,
love
church
over
70
years
old,
so
and
plus
I
agree
with
this
with
the
the
senator
that
that
the
the
perspective
of
of
those
folks,
we
would
hate
to
lose
at
least
in
the
prosecutors
would
and
the
other,
and
the
other
thing
is
so
many
of
them
have
the
time
to
do
it
and
and
one
so
so
I'm
a
little
bit
ambivalent
about.
Thank
you.
A
E
Senator
wheeler
yeah
I
I
have
some
conflict
too,
for
the
reason
stated,
but
I
am
going
to
vote
for
it
because
you
know
I
mean
I.
Think
generally
the.
If
somebody
really
doesn't
want
to
be
there
really
bad.
That's
generally,
not
a
good
person
to
have
on
a
jury.
Sometimes
you
don't
want
somebody
that
wants
to
be
there
too,
too
bad
as
well.
So
I
I'm,
I'm
comfortable
with
this
I
know.
Initially
some
people
said
that
well,
this
is
the
rule
in
federal
courts.
L
I
think
Mr
chairman
is
a
person
who's,
40
I
appreciate
this
bill.
Under
the
present
rules,
you've
got
to
get
the
judged,
excuse
you
and
you
got
to
go
through
the
process,
fill
out
a
piece
of
paper
and
all
that
a
lot
of
people
at
70
years,
old
and
older,
don't
even
have
to
come
to
court.
If
they
really
want
to
serve,
they
can
serve
if
they
don't
want
to
serve
you're,
not
going
to
have
a
pretty
good
juror
anyway.
So
I
really
appreciate
this
bill.
L
A
A
K
I
know
that
in
the
areas
that
I
represent
at
this
point,
we
really
have
trouble
getting
jurors
and
I
know
that
many
of
my
retired
friends
have
actually
started
doing
jury
duty
because
they're
able
they're
eligible
and
they
can
until
we
know
what
this
is
actually
going
to
do-
to
impact
our
potential
jury
pool
I'm
hesitant
to
go
ahead,
so
I
apologize
but
I'm
voting.
No.
Thank
you.
F
U
Extremely
explain
my
no
vote.
Yes
sir
I
appreciate
the
work
you've
done
on
this
bill.
My
concern
is,
we
have
a
jury
of
our
peers
and,
if
there's
an
elderly
individual,
that's
that's
charged.
The
crime
I'd
like
to
have
a
jury
of
their
peers.
U
If
it's
a
young
individual
I
like
to
have
a
jury
of
their
peers,
I
think
that's
what
our
Constitution's,
founded
on
I,
also
noticed
that
we
have
a
Commonwealth
Attorney
here
in
the
room
with
us
and
as
the
comments
that
Senator
schickel
made
I
saw
several
heads
nod
in
the
audience.
I
do
appreciate
your
efforts,
but
again
in
the
eastern
district
of
Kentucky,
where
I
practice
every
jury
member
can
fill
out
a
form
and
ask
to
be
excused
and
they
provide
their
doctor's
excuse
or
something.
U
A
Z
Thank
you,
I
apologize,
Suzanne
mile,
State,
Representative
of
7th
District.
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
committee
for
hearing
this
bill
today.
369
is
a
act
on
expungements
and
it
has
just
a
few
changes.
It's
very
short
Bill.
The
most
important
part
of
this
bill
is
on
the
first
page,
where
it
changes
it
from
series
to
multiple.
That's
one
of
the
most
important
things.
M
M
This
is
a
very
minor
change,
but
when
you
look
at
it
really,
I
could
only
find
one
word
multiple
versus
series,
but
you
could
make
the
argument
that
a
when
you
say
a
series
offenses,
the
average
person
would
think
that
those
were
related
words,
multiple
kind
of
opens
it
up
to
whatever
that's
the
way.
I
interpret
it,
and
so
this
is
at
least
the
way.
I
read
it:
an
expansion
at
a
time
when
we're
really
trying
to
go
in
the
opposite
direction
in
many
areas
and
make
juvenile
records
more
accountable
for
multiple
reasons.
A
B
K
A
A
Thank
you
committee
appreciate
it
all
right.
I
was
trying
to
get
all
the
all
the
really
heavy
stuff
out
of
the
way
first
house
bill,
568
an
act
relating
to
the
public
defender
system
representative
nemus
glad
to
have
you.
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman,
as.
AA
AA
That's
exactly
exactly
my
job
is
to
make
sure
your
bills
don't
fail
on
the
floor
and
we're
putting
a
bunch
of
Senate
bills
through
now
so
I'll
be
quick
to
get
back
over
and
make
sure
your
bills
continue
to
go
through.
So
what
this
bill
does
all
right,
I
guess
we
need
to
introduce
ourselves.
Please
Jason,
Nema,
state
representative,
33rd,
Jefferson,
Odom,
Shelby
counties
at.
AA
Thank
you
Mr
chairman,
so
our
public
defenders
are
gems
of
our
system.
We
really
have
a
lot
of
respect
for
them.
They
do
very
important
work
under
the
under
the
the
supervision
of
Damon
Preston
today
and
Ed
Monahan
before
and
Ernie
Lewis
before
him
and
at
the
local
level,
in
Louisville,
under
Leo
and
Lil,
Smith
and
and
Daniel.
Yet
before
that
their
top-notch
professionals
across
the
Commonwealth
that
we're
very
proud
of
the
work
that
they
do
across
the
Commonwealth.
AA
What
this
bill
does
is
it
would
bring
the
last
office
that
is
not
in
the
state
system
into
the
state
system
about
15
years
ago,
as
as
president
Stivers
knows
very
well,
Fayette
County
system
was
brought
into
the
state
system
and
the
reason
they're
outside
is
because
they
they
existed
before
the
Statewide
system,
and
so
this
is
something
that's
been
inevitable
from
the
beginning,
and
the
timing
is
just
right
at
this
moment.
So
we'll
answer
any.
A
A
AA
You
and
the
substitute
just
adds
section
seven
that
came
from
the
the
newest
senator
from
Louisville.
She
she
suggested
this
and
what
it
does.
It
says
that,
during
the
interim,
while
we're
studying
the
the
transition,
there
will
be
no
employee.
That's
terminated
without
cause.
A
V
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman,
just
just
a
couple:
if
I
may
I
understand
what
you're
doing
I
believe,
but
what's
the
impact
of
this
in
terms
of
as
I
understand
it
as
it
as
it
sets
set
up
now
part
of
that
money
comes
from
Louisville
if
you're
talking
about
Louisville's
offices
and
part
of
it
comes
from
the
state,
yes
Senator,
and
this
would
assume
well.
This
would
take
that
operation
and
put
it
under
the
state
operation.
Correct.
That's
right,
Senator!
Okay!
So
does
this
improve
I'm
just
trying
to
get
the
impact
of
this?
V
AA
V
AA
F
AA
But
this
is
a
Statewide
system
that
if
you
talk
to
Ed
who's,
the
most
recent
retired
public
defender
and
Damon
who's
in
the
audience,
our
public
defender
system
has
looked
across
the
country
as
being
a
model
and
that's
one
reason
because
we're
unified.
But
it's
also
because
we've
had
really
good
programming
from
the
very
beginning.
Louisville
system
is
very
good.
Well
under
Dan
go
yet
and
now
Leo
Smith.
AA
What
this
would
do
is
it
would
prove
it
it
would
it
just
like
it
did
in
Fayette
County
about
15
years
ago,
we'll
be
in
the
system,
all
unified
system,
which
is
a
good
thing,
and
so
you
know
with
the
day-to-day
lives
of
the
employees,
though
I
want
to
be
clear.
AA
Their
lives
really
won't
change
much
other
than
they'll
be
getting
the
state
resources
behind
them
more
than
they
do
today,
but
they'll
be
still
representing
folks
in
divisions,
one
through
13
in
circuit
court
and
one
through
17
in
District,
Court
and
one
through
ten
in
family
court
in
Jefferson
County.
They
won't
be
going
to
Perry,
County
or
anywhere
else,
just
like
the
folks
from
Perry
County
won't
be
coming
to
Louisville.
AA
V
The
the
in
investigating
this
or
looking
at
this,
the
Jew
can
did
you
talk
to
the
people
in
the
existing
system
or
the
mayor's
office
or
who's
involved
in
I'm.
Just
trying
to
figure
this
out
because
I've
been
getting
calls.
AA
So
yeah
so
I've
been
thinking
about
doing
this
for
about
15
years,
I
was
the
director
of
the
administrative
office
of
the
courts
when
the
Lafayette
County
came
into
the
system
and
I
didn't
have
a
direct
role,
but
I
was
involved
tangentially
with
that,
because
the
courts
are
involved
when
that
kind
of
a
transition
occurs
and-
and
so
I
talked
with
my
friends,
Ernie
Lewis
was
the
public
Advocate
at
the
time
and
then
Mr
Monahan
after
that,
knowing
that
it
was
inevitable
that
it
was
going
to
happen,
but
it
just
we
waited
for
the
right
timing,
which
is
now
so
I've
been
thinking
about
it
for
a
long
time
talking
to
a
lot
of
people
there.
AA
Recently
over
the
summer
there
was
a
there
was
a
Committee
hearing
in
Louisville
for
the
budget
committee
and
both
the
Republicans
and
Democrats
were
very,
very
supportive
of
having
the
state
take
this
over
in
many
ways.
This
is
like
the
Department
of
Juvenile
Justice
situation,
where
Louisville
was
the
only
place
that
was
paying
for
its
own,
which
isn't
fair
and
also
hurts
the
system.
I
think
and
hurts
the
local
local
office
in
many
ways.
This
is
similar
to
that.
AA
So,
okay,
those
are
some
questions
who
did
I
talk
to
I
talked
to
a
lot
of
council
persons,
but
I
also
talked
to
to
the
local,
some
local
public
defenders
and
and
some
folks
on
the
board.
So
I've
talked
to
a
number:
I
did
not
talk
to
Leo,
Smith
for
or
or
Damon
Preston
about
this
in
particular,
because
I
didn't
want
I
didn't
want
it
to
be
look
like
they're
trying
to
take
over
anything,
so
I
didn't
meet
with
them,
but
I've
met
with
a
lot
of
local
folks.
Thank
you
very.
V
A
Appreciate
all
right,
we're
going
to
move
along.
We've
got
a
motion
in
a
second
on
the
bill,
as
amended
by
the
substitute
I
know.
Please,
Madam
Secretary
call
the
roll.
F
V
A
We've
got
the
last
two
bills
on
the
agenda
here,
folks
and
I'm,
going
to
give
them
10
minutes
per
bill
because
we
got
to
get
out
of
here.
I
know
there
are
a
lot
of
people
that
want
to
speak
on
249.
A
couple
of
people
want
to
speak
on.
262.
A
AB
AB
And,
as
you
said,
we
don't
have
much
time
so
I'll
try
to
get
through
a
a
long
discussion
very
quickly,
I'm
presenting
kimber's
law,
which
would
add
the
murder
of
a
child
under
the
age
of
12
to
the
list
of
aggravating
circumstances
we
have
in
Kentucky
I
want
to
say
up
front.
This
is
not
a
vote
that
is
a
approval
or
disapproval
of
the
death
penalty.
AB
A
Got
a
motion
on
the
bill:
is
there
a
second
second
from
Senator
Carol
motion
from
Senator,
schickel
I?
Don't
I
don't
mean
to
cut
you
off?
Here's
here's!
What
I'm
gonna
do
we
got
a
motion
and
a
second
on
the
bill
I'm
going
to
let
the
folks
that
that
have
something
to
to
say
and
want
to
speak
against.
It
speak
against
it,
but
I'm
gonna.
Let
you
wrap
it
up.
Okay,.
AB
I'll
I'll
just
add
quickly
a
lot
of
times
when
this
issue
is
brought
up.
The
conversation
focused
solely
on
the
defendant
and
I
would
just
like
to
refocus
on
the
victims
of
these
horrible
crimes
that
we're
speaking
of
today.
I
would
like
to
add
that
I
consider
an
amendment
to
be
unfriendly,
because
we
have
this
list
of
eight
aggravating
circumstances
and
the
murder
of
a
child
should
be
on
there.
If
we
have
a
list,
I
think
it
deserves
to
be
there
and
with
that
I'll
I'll
come
back
whenever
caught
on
by
you
Mr
chairman.
A
A
AC
Thank
you,
I'm
Scott
West,
with
the
Department
of
Public
advocacy
20
years
ago.
I
was
the
directing
attorney
in
the
Murray
office
and
we
get
our
news
from
Paducah.
You
hear
a
lot
of
Illinois
news,
so
I
was
there
when
Governor
Ryan
commuted
everyone
on
death
row
because
of
13
exonerations,
and
since
that
time,
20
years
ago
there
have
been
seven
more
20
in
a
little
over
20
years.
AC
Sometimes
they
say
it's
because
of
corruption
in
Cook
County.
You
know
it
can
happen,
sometimes
a
bad
investigation.
It
could
be
an
inept
incompetent
lawyer.
Sometimes
it's
just
where
the
evidence
is
conflicting.
In
2009
I
tried
a
case
involving
the
death
of
a
child,
and
this
was
a
subdural
hematoma
case
Sudden
Impact
syndrome.
AC
There
was
a
brain
shear
and
it
the
Commonwealth's
experts,
the
medical
examiner's
office,
said
that
death
had
to
have
occurred
between
four
and
a
half
and
five
and
a
half
hours
of
the
trauma
that
that
child
suffered.
The
focus
then
became
who
had
the
child.
At
that
time
it
was
my
client,
but
I
had
an
expert
one
that
subscribed
to
Dr
Jan
liesman,
who
recently
died.
Who's
put
it
at
up
to
eight
hours,
which,
if
it's
happened
between
six
and
eight
hours,
it
was
the
co-defendant
who
was
charged
only
with
abuse,
not
with
murder.
AC
I
think
that
he
was
innocent,
but
you
have
a
lot
of
places
where,
if
there's
an
aggravator,
it's
going
to
be
filed-
and
this
is
highly
emotional
case
about
a
year
after
this
case,
I
was
at
IHOP
and
one
of
the
jurors
recognized
me
and
came
up
and
said
you
know,
we
thought
you
did
a
good
job.
We
thought
we
kind
of
believed
your
expert,
we
weren't
sure,
but
something
had
to
be
done
for
that
child
and
it
was
a
highly
emotional
traumatic
case.
AC
AC
The
other
thing
I
want
to
say
is
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
in
the
interim
talking
about
PFO
multiple
meetings
over
the
last
two
interims.
You
know
when
we
talk
about
Bill
I'm,
always
there.
How
many
years
have
we
talked
about
Bell
in
the
interim,
it
gets
vetted
in
front
of
a
joint
Judiciary
Committee.
You
know
you
hear
more
than
a
two-minute
drill
from
Scott
West
on
something
like
that.
This
is
the
death
penalty.
It's
our
highest
penalty,
it's
much
more
than
PFO.
AC
A
A
You
Jason
or
Mr
Griffith.
T
My
name
is
Ben
Griffith
I'm,
a
member
of
a
murder
victim
family
group
that
speaks
against
the
death
penalty.
I
can
assure
you
that
families
struggle
with
the
issue
of
death's
penalty.
We've
discovered
our
objections
to
the
death
penalty,
not
by
intellectual
exercise,
but
by
the
fire
of
a
spiritual
and
moral
struggle,
and
many
of
us
urge
you
to
see
the
alternative
of
life
without
parole
as
preferred
option
for
society
and
for
family
survivors.
What's
been
common
in
more
increasingly
clear.
T
Is
that
in
the
states
that
don't
allow
the
death
penalty
and
instead
use
the
sentence
of
life
without
parole,
that
family
survivors
have
a
better
quality
of
life
without
life
with
life
without
parole,
we
put
the
murderer
in
prison
and
then
it's
really
over
in
a
matter
of
a
couple
years,
with
the
death
penalty,
it's
Decades
of
reliving,
reliving
reliving,
so
I
just
urge
you
to
support
the
the
amendment
to
replace
the
death
penalty,
remove
it
and
and
use
life
without
parole
as
that
ultimate
penalty.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
G
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
I'm
Jason
Hall
at
the
Catholic
Conference
of
Kentucky,
and
our
objection
is
the
same
as
Mr
Griffiths.
We
certainly
agree
with
the
sponsor
that
this
offense
deserves
me
on
any
list
of
serious
crimes.
It's
certainly
a
horrendous
offense,
but
any
expansion
of
the
death
penalty
is
simply
not
justified,
giving
the
state
of
our
death
penalty
system
190
exonerations
since
1973-
and
this
is
a
government
program
that
that
ends
people's
lives,
and
we
can't
take
that
kind
of
chance.
We
should
not
be
expanding
the
death
penalty.
At
this
point.
G
We
should
be
talking
about
rolling
it
back,
and
so
for
that
reason
we
do
oppose
the
bill
as
it
stands,
but
would
certainly
encourage
you
at
the
very
least
if
we
would
prefer
I
think
to
talk
about
this
more.
But
if
there
is
a
desire
to
move
forward,
there
is
an
amendment
to
remove
the
death
penalty
and
still
allow
for
life
without
parole
or
life
without
parole
for
25
years.
So
thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
gentlemen.
I
appreciate
it.
We've
got
a
motion
and
a
second
on
the
bill
representative
you're
welcome
to
come
back
up.
Yes,
yes,.
AB
And
and
I
I'll
just
add
quickly,
I
did
I
did
think
it
would
be
prudent
to
study
how
the
death
penalty
is
used
and
under
the
current
statute
we
have
with
this
that
was
passed
in
2012,
with
aggravating
circumstances
and
mitigating
circumstances
and
all
the
things
the
jury
must
look
at.
The
death
penalty
has
been
given
as
a
sentence
one
time
since
then
it's
been
given
three
times
or
there's
been
only
three
executions
since
1960
one
of
them
was
a
man
who
asked
to
be
executed.
AB
J
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman,
ladies
and
gentlemen
of
the
committee,
I'll,
be
brief.
You've
heard
anecdotal
story
about
what
happens
in
a
child.
Homicide
prosecution
from
my
colleague
and
DPA
I
would
like
to
also
tell
you
a
story
that
I
endured
and
why
this
law
is
called
kimber's
law
and
a
lot
of
times,
Sudden
Impact
death
syndrome.
Those
are
not
crimes
that
are
alleged
under
the
intentional
portion
of
the
murder
statute.
A
lot
of
those
are
shaken
baby
cases
where
wanting
murder
is
at
play
and
that
wouldn't
Encompass
this
bill.
J
This
is
the
intentional
murder
of
a
child.
Kimber
Collins
was
a
beautiful
two-year-old
girl
that
lived
in
the
34th
judicial
circuit
that
was
beaten
to
death
over
the
course
of
three
hours.
There
were
more
bruises
on
her
body
than
skin
and
she
died
a
terrible
death
at
the
hand
of
her
mother's
boyfriend.
When
she
arrived
at
the
hospital
she
was
dead,
her
mother
had
to
make
the
decision
to
unplug
her
from
life
support
three
days
later,
which
is
a
choice
no
parent
should
have
to
see.
J
I
saw
that
child
myself
I
pray
you
never
have
to
so.
Under
the
circumstances
of
that
case,
I
I
chose
to
charge
Michael
Cody
Huff,
the
offender
in
that
case
with
intentional
murder,
because
I
believed
after
the
medical
examiner
identified,
44
separate
injuries
to
this
two-year-old
defenseless
little
girl
that
he
did
it
no
other
way
than
intentional,
and
that
bill
would
be
he
would
be
charged
with
an
aggravating
circumstance.
J
J
I
have-
and
it
happened
again
two
weeks
ago,
in
my
jurisdiction,
a
beautiful
little
girl
was
beaten
to
death
and
when
I
leave
here
with
you
guys
I'm
going
to
the
medical
examiner's
office,
so
she
can
educate
me
on
just
how
many
injuries
she
had,
and
she
has
three
pages
of
notes
on
that.
If
we
have
a
statute
that
calls
the
worst
crimes
in
Kentucky,
the
worst
of
the
worst,
the
intentional,
the
intentional
murder
of
a
child
should
be
on
that
list.
J
Everything,
like
representative
Wilson,
said
in
the
aggravating
circumstances:
statute
deals
with
what
a
defendant
was
doing.
Was
it
in
the
course
of
a
robbery
use
of
weapon
mass
destruction,
things
of
those
nature
the
only
aggravating
circumstance
that
has
to
do
with
what
a
who
a
victim
is
and
he
gets
protection.
Is
you
and
me,
public
officials?
J
So,
right
now,
under
the
state
of
the
law,
you
and
I
have
more
protection
and
more
bite
under
the
crime
bill
than
children
and
every
state
that
believes
in
capital
punishment,
which
is
also
life
without
parole.
I
know
two
folks
spoke
out
and
and
spoke
their
heart
about
life
without
parole.
That
is
a
sentencing
option
and,
as
you
can
tell
by
the
trends
that
Mr
Wilson
pointed
out,
that's
usually
a
default
sentencing
option
for
juries
across
the
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky
I've
tried
a
death
penalty
case.
Four
innocent
victims
were
brutally
murdered.
J
He
got
life
without
parole,
so
the
death
penalty
is
not
something
that
is
a
pandemic
or
something
that
breaks
out
falsely
in
Kentucky
and
all
the
exoneration
statistics
that
are
pointed
out
to
you,
exonerations
here
and
there.
Those
are
National
statistics,
not
Kentucky,
I.
Think
Kentucky
juries
get
it
right
and
they
do
an
excellent
job.
I
just
think
if
they
get
the
opportunity
and
the
last
thing
I'll
say
and
I'll
be
quiet,
I
know,
I
was
told
to
be
brief.
Michael
Cody
Huff
got
45
years
by
plea.
J
I
offered
him
50,
which
was
the
max
the
mother
consented
to
45
years.
He
gets
parole
eligibility
in
20
years
every
day,
I
wake
up
and
look
in
the
mirror,
I
feel
like
I,
failed,
Kimber,
Collins
and
I'm,
asking
for
the
tools
to
remove
people
vile
enough
to
intentionally
murder
a
child
from
our
society.
Thank
you.
AB
Mr
chairman,
just
one
brief
thing:
no
matter
how
much
evidence
we
had
no
matter
what
we
could
show
a
jury,
we
could
not
guarantee
to
kimber's
mother
that
this
man
would
not
get
out
of
prison
one
day
if
it
was
an
aggravating
Circumstance.
The
jury
would
have
that
option.
We
would
be
able
to
tell
her
there
is
a
possibility
that
he
will
never
walk
free
again
under
the
current
state
of
law.
We
cannot
guarantee
that
for
our
children
victims.
AB
K
P
A
A
A
And
gentlemen
last
bill
to
go
is
House,
Bill,
262
and
I'm
going
to
ask
Jenny
if
thank
you,
Miss
Oldham
come
on
up
and
Lewis
if
you're
going
to
speak.
Also,
thank
you.
You
all
have
the
floor
and
again
I
I
apologize
for
cutting
it
short
and
I
want
to
make
sure
Mr
Lawson
has
an
opportunity
to
speak
on
behalf
of
kcdl
for
262
as
well.
Thank.
AD
You
Jenny
Oldham
I'm,
the
president
of
the
County,
attorneys
Association,
and
also
the
Hardin
County
attorney.
This
bill
does
three
things
and
I'll
be
as
brief
as
I.
Possibly
can
one.
Currently,
the
statute
requires
an
order
for
us
to
admit
the
ba
into
evidence,
and
a
trial
of
a
DUI
would
require
the
officer
to
testify
that
they
had
followed
the
manufacturer's
instructions.
There
are
no
manufacturers
instructions
for
the
intoxilizer,
the
officers
actually
trained
according
to
his
training
and
that's
the
wording
we're
asking
for.
AD
AE
Thank
you
Mr
chairman,
my
name
is
Lewis
Kelly
I'm,
the
Commonwealth
Attorney
for
the
54th
judicial
circuit,
which
is
Boone
in
Gallatin
counties.
Section
three
of
this
bill
would
add
a
charge,
a
set
part
to
chapter
507
allowing
for
vehicular
homicide,
which
would
be
if
you
caused
the
death,
while
also
engaging
driving
Under
the
Influence
under
KRS
chapter
189,
a
what
this
basically
does
is.
It
fills
a
gap
right
now
as
prosecutors.
AE
If
we
have
a
debt
that
results
from
a
DUI,
we
can
charge
them
with
Reckless
homicide,
a
d
we
can
charge
them
with
man,
second,
which
is
a
class
C
felony,
or
we
can
charge
them
with
wanton
murder
and
which
is
a
class
a
felony.
We
do
not
have
a
class
B
option.
We
like
to
have
as
many
options
as
can,
because
cases
run
the
gamut
and
we
want
to
do
what
is
appropriate.
AE
A
E
Yeah
Senator
wheeler
has
a
question:
yeah
I
mean
and
I
don't
do
a
whole
lot
of
criminal
law.
It's
been
years
but
I
mean
I,
did
do
a
few
DUI
cases
back
when
I
practiced
and
defended,
and
there
was
a
manual
that
you
could
cross-examine
the
officer
with
that
kind
of
told
you
how
to
operate
the
machine.
You
know
how
long
they
had
like
you
know,
make
sure
their
mouth's,
clean
and
area
doesn't
have.
AD
A
AD
A
Seeing
no
other
questions
I
want
to
have
Mr
Lawson
come
on
up.
AF
All
right,
Philip
Lawson
by
half
of
kcdl
the
main
issue
that
I
have
I,
hope
that
you
all
received
and
reviewed
my
email,
so
I
won't
go
into
those
details,
but
one
of
the
main
issues
that
I
that
we
have
is
exactly
what
exactly
in
terms
of
causation.
This
bill
provides.
AF
If
you
look
at
the
page
three
regarding
the
vehicular
homicide
bill,
the
language
reference
in
1A
references
causes
and
then
in
B
references
results
and,
as
I
stated
in
my
email,
there's
two
different
types
of
causes
that
you
see
both
in
the
Civil
world
and
then
in
the
criminal
world.
We
have
cause,
and
we
have
the
men's
Raya
element
to
me.
I
think
and
I
detailed,
the
email,
I
think
courts
are
going
to
struggle
with
interpreting
what
exactly
the
level
of
causation
is
needed
for
this
particular
crime.
As
you
know,
cause
is
an
antecedent.
AF
It
can
be
a
one
percent
cause
under
criminal
code
under
civil
law.
We
have
the
proximate
cause.
You
know
a
saw
question:
okay,
fair
enough
and
so
I
think
that
the
the
courts
are
going
to
struggle
in
terms
of
what
the
result
means,
and
so
what
I
was
actually
going
to
propose
here
and
I
was
going
to
propose
by
a
separate
email,
was
actually
an
amendment.
That
I
think
clears
up
the
controversy,
and
this
is
from
actually
straight
from
the
Colorado
statute
regarding
vehicular,
homicide
and
I.
AF
Think
you'll
provide
Clarity
in
terms
of
causation
for
the
courts,
and
it
reads
that
if
a
person
operates
or
drives
a
motor
vehicle
while
under
the
influence
of
alcohol
or
one
or
more
drugs
or
a
combination
of
both
alcohol
and
one
or
more
drugs
and
such
conduct
is
the
proximate
cause
of
the
death
of
another.
Such
person
commits
vehicular.
Homicide
I
worry
that
the
term
results
which
is
not
defined
in
statute,
which
is
not
a
common
term
under
case
law.
AF
That's
courts
are
going
to
struggle
determining
is
it
but
for
cause
that
we're
trying
to
criminalize
here
is
the
approximate
cause.
Is
it
something
other
than
that
I
think
Colorado?
You
know
Falls
what
a
lot
of
states
do
by
still
making
a
strict
liability
but
being
very
clear
on
the
causation
component
in
our
law.
The
courts
can
readily
go
to
that
Bank
regarding
the
definition
of
causation,
with
proximate
cause
been
around
since
I
think
73.
AF
Do
not,
but
but
a
lot
of
these
States,
including
New,
Jersey
and
Colorado,
also
use
the
proximate
cause.
The
problem
is
with
strict
liability.
Chairman
is
it's
different
than
all
other
criminal
statutes?
The
reason
is,
we
have
a
act
actus
Reyes
component,
and
then
we
have
the
mental
state.
That's
how
we
usually
deal
with
causation
in
the
criminal
world,
but.
AF
Don't
disagree
but
the
thing
is:
is
courts
are
going
to
struggle
with
determining
what
results
is
from
a
causation
standpoint,
I
mean
what
is
it
I
mean?
Is
it
the
butt
for
cause?
Well,
if
you
know,
if
a
Court's
going
to
look
at
that
particular
term
they're
going
to
say
well,
they
used
calls
in
the
prior
subsection.
They
must
have
meant
something
different.
Was
it
something
more
than
a
but
for
a
cause?
Was
it
proximate
cause?
AF
We
don't
know
they're
going
to
go
through
a
statutory
interpretation
exercise
trying
to
determine
what
results
is
as
it
pertains
to
the
issue
of
causation.
That's
why
I
think
that,
even
though
yes,
we
are
going
to
I,
would
propose
going
to
a
civil
standard
as
it
relates
to
proximate
cause,
it's
a
pretty
consistent
thing
that
other
states
do
again
Colorado.
Does
it
New
Jersey?
Does
it
using
that
proximate
cause
analysis?
AF
It
keeps
it
strict,
it's
a
strict
liability
standard,
but
it
allows
courts
to
go
into
that
bank
of
law
as
it
pertains
to
approximate
cause
to
determine
what
exactly
causation
level
means.
Okay,
so
that's
what
I
would
propose,
and
we
did
mention
that
I
think
in
terms
of
the
level
the
class
B.
If
it
is
charged
as
a
Class
B,
it
would
be
akin
to
a
violent
crime
similar
to
specific
intent.
Manslaughter
first
degree.
We
would
propose
a
Class
C
again
to
manslaughter
second
degree.
AF
Of
course,
A
lot
of
these
other
statutes
too
in
other
states,
as
it
pertains
to
these
strict
liability
statutes
it's
much
lower
than
what
is
proposed.
For
instance,
Texas
has
a
sentencing
range
of
2
to
20..
Florida
has
a
minimum
of
four.
This
would
propose
a
minimum
of
minimum
10
to
be
served
at
85,
because
it
would
be
a
class
B,
felony
and
violent
under
439..
AF
M
AF
A
It's
the
easiest
question
all
day
right,
any
other
question
or
comment.
K
AG
How
about
I
explain
the
vote?
Yes
sir
I
want
to
thank
the
folks
that
have
brought
this
forward
and
the
addition
of
vehicular
homicide
to
the
statute.
It
is
sorely
needed
and
we
have
many
many
families
that
have
lost
loved
ones
due
to
intoxicated
drivers,
Beyond
alcohol,
so
I
appreciate
the
vehicular
homicide
statute.
Thank
you.
U
So,
although
I
do
appreciate
the
bulk
of
what's
in
the
bill,
when
individuals
are
contacting
me
and
tell
me
about
issues
about
the
intoxilizer
requirements,
I've
faced
that
in
my
practice,
I've
heard
about
it
throughout
the
Commonwealth.
It's
a
big
issue,
so
I'm
very
favorable
to
that
aspect
of
the
bill
and
I
like
how
you
all
put
that
in
there
to
make
me
want
to
vote
for
it
because
I'm
very
inclined
to
vote
for
it
because
of
that.
U
But
the
other
issues
I
see
are
I've
tried
these
cases
to
juries
and
they're
very
difficult
and
I
think
it's
important
to
to
focus
on
the
intent,
the
mental
state,
the
causation
and
those
those
issues
that
were
raised
today.
The
last
bill
we
talked
we
heard
about
intentional
acts
intentional
killing.
To
me
this
is
a
bit
ambiguous
in
section
three.
So
therefore
I
vote,
no.
E
Mr
chairman
explain
my
I
vote
Yes
sir
yeah
I
mean
this
is
one
of
those
bills
that
I
I'm
kind
of
balancing
do
I
like
more
of
it,
love
it
that
I,
don't
I
mean
I,
do
have
some
concerns
that
the
Commonwealth
would
use
a
machine
that
refuses
to
publish
an
instruction
manual.
I
mean
that
that
does
raise
all
questions
in
my
mind
or
when
they
did
previously
have
one.
Then
suddenly
it
goes
off
the
market
when
people
get
questioned
on
that,
but
again,
I,
I,
overall
I
think
it's
a
good
bill.
E
So
I
am
going
to
vote
I,
but
you
know
that
is
kind
of
an
interesting
situation.