►
From YouTube: 5/14/2021 - Senate Committee on Judiciary, Pt 1
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
All
right,
I
will
call
this
meeting
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee
to
order
it
is
friday,
may
14th
2021.
It
is
deadline
day
and
it's
very
nice
to
see
so
many
people
here
in
person
will
the
esteemed
secretary
please
call
the
roll.
C
D
A
Here
and
for
the
benefit
of
everybody
who
is
following
along
everybody,
who
is
here,
it's
currently
2
45
pm.
My
plan
is
to
do
a
part
of
the
work
session.
Now
we
have
combined
about
five
bills
into
a
consent
calendar,
so
that
should
only
take
us
a
few
minutes.
Then
we
will
go
to
the
hearing
on
ab396.
A
E
Thanks
j.r
scheibel
for
the
record,
patrick
geining
committee
policy.
Analyst,
as
the
chair
mentioned,
we
have
a
consent
calendar
that
we're
going
to
do
quickly
if
you're
looking
at
the
consent
calendar.
Some
of
the
bills
are
not
going
to
be
on
it.
So
I'll
read
very
quickly
what
they
are.
E
B
A
All
right,
senator
oran
shaw
moves,
do
pass
vice
chair
cannizzaro
seconds.
The
motion
is
there
any
discussion
on
the
motion
seeing
none,
we
do
have
one
member
participating
remotely
today,
so
I
will
ask
for
a
roll
call
vote
for
clarity
on
the
record.
A
F
A
Yes,
and
with
that
the
consent
calendar
passes
all
of
those
motions.
Did
you
pass
those
bills
pass?
I
will
go
ahead
and
assign
floor
statements
right
now.
Any
volunteers
for
ab107
all
right,
senator
pickard,
it's
yours,
any
volunteers
for
ab112,
senator
hansen,
it's
yours!
Any
volunteers
for
ab-113,
senator
hansen.
It's
yours.
A
And
318.
senator
cannizzaro
is
that
everything,
mr
gainen
all
right.
That
concludes
our
work
session.
For
now
there
will
be
more
to
come
later,
so
you
all
have
that
to
look
forward
to
and
now
I
will
open
up
the
hearing
on.
A
G
Thank
you,
chair
shivel,
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee.
My
name
is:
chandra
summers:
armstrong
assemblywoman
for
assembly
district
six.
I
appreciate
you
all
placing
this
item
on
your
agenda
for
hearing,
and
I
appreciate
your
time
and
attention
to
this
very
important
matter.
Today
I
come
before
you
with
assembly
bill
396..
G
G
It
does
a
couple
of
things
one.
It
clarifies
an
nrs
200.140
that
when
there
is
a
hummus
when
homicide
is
justifiable
when
committed
by
a
police
officer
or
a
peace
officer
that
that
language
is
clarified,
that
it
is
not
the
public,
but
that
it
is
a
peace
officer,
and
that
is
in
section
1
1
and
it
clarifies
that
it
is
peace
officer,
b.
G
G
Section
one
when,
if
the
person
who
is
if
the
person
is
being
apprehended,
we
want
some
clarity
here,
I'm
so
nervous.
Just
bear
with
me.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
the
person
who
was
being
apprehended
and
if
there
is
a
need
for
deadly
force,
that
it
is
only
in
the
instance
of
serious
bodily
harm
or
the
use
of
force
and
that
the
person
who
is
trying
they
are
trying
to
apprehend
is
an
imminent
threat
of
bodily
harm
to
said
peace
officer
or
others
in
the
vicinity.
G
G
Deadly
force
has
been
used
and
I
think
that
it
is
really
important
that
we
make
a
distinction
that
whoever
is
being
apprehended,
whoever
is
being
apprehended,
causes
and
is
an
imminent
danger
to
the
police
officer,
who
is
conducting
the
extraction
or
is
arresting
someone,
and
that
that
person
is
just
not
running
away
from
the
police
and
that
they
are
a
threat
to
someone
else
before
deadly
force
is
used
with
me
today
is
mr
ishman.
He
was
also
present
at
the
assembly
hearing.
G
H
We
support
and
applaud
this
good
faith
effort
to
meet
the
new
level
of
deadly
force
expected
by
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department's
use
of
force
policy
and
for
the
benefit
of
our
great
state
nevada.
We
urge
you
to
pass
ab396
today,
more
and
more
progressive
states
and
police
departments
are
also
changing
their
laws.
We
are
long
overdue
for
this
change
and
that
goes
back
to
2005.
H
So
we
welcome
this
change
to
our
laws,
realizing
that
police
policy
could
easily
change
with
the
next
sheriff.
It
makes
ab396
that
much
more
necessary
justice,
unfortunately,
is
not
always
swift,
but
today
we
can
make
this
life-saving
change
today.
I
speak
not
only
on
behalf
of
nafta,
but
with
the
cooperative
support
of
several
community-based
organizations
such
as
the
naacp
las
vegas
chapter
sam
mccoy
president,
the
east
vegas
christian
center
pastor,
troy
martinez,
the
national
coalition
of
100
black
women
incorporated
las
vegas
chapter,
dr
sandra
mack
president,
and
the
fountain
of
hope.
H
Ame
church
reverend
gregory
k,
macleod
passed
it.
H
H
A
B
Thank
you.
So
much
michael
question
relates
to
a
bill
that
was
just
recently
passed
in
the
assembly
today.
Do
you
miss
armstrong
feel
that
the
provisions
related
to
force
are
in
any
way
in
conflict
with
senate
bill
212.
G
I
think
that
there
is
an
opportunity
for
complement
of
this
language
in
in
a
senate
bill
2-1-2
in
section
3.7,
there
was
an
amendment
that
speaks
to
imminent
when
you
are
speaking
of
dealing
with
folks
who
are
a
danger
to
themselves
and
the
behavior
of
the
police
when
trying
to
apprehend
or
dealing
with
those
folks
in
a
situation
where
they
are
where
you
are
trying
to
extract
them
from
a
home
or
they
have
mental
illness,
and
I
think
that
there's
this,
the
term
imminent,
could
very
well
be
used
in
other
instances
as
well,
just
because
a
person
is
not
mentally
ill
but
doesn't
also
doesn't
pose
a
threat.
G
I
think
that
the
same
standard
of
care,
the
same
standard
of
patience
and
respect
for
life
should
be
applied
in
any
situation
where
we
are
trying
to
apprehend
someone.
That
imminent
should
be
our
standard.
That
is
asking
our
peace
officers
to
take
a
0.5
second
pause
before
they
act,
not
that
they
cannot
act.
We
don't
want
to
tie
their
hands
and
say
they
cannot.
I
J
K
I
To
look
at
that
amendment
and
go
to
that
on
nellis.
So
if
I
could
just
have.
A
C
Thank
you
and
thank
you
assemblywoman
for
being
here
today
and
I'm
glad
that
senator
harris
asked
the
question,
because
I
do
think
that
one
of
the
things
is-
and
I
know
mr
anthony
is
taking
a
look
at
this,
but
in
so
in
ab396
it
specifically
in
section
one
references
whether
or
not
the
homicide
results
from
use
of
force
by
the
peace
officer
in
accordance
with
171.1455,
so
it
specifically
references
171-1455
and
then
section
2
amends
171.1
in
looking
at
even
the
most
even
the
mock-up
that
was
presented
for
senate
bill
212.
C
It's
substantially.
I
mean
the
meat
of
this,
at
least
in
my
opinion.
Aside
from
the
reporting
pieces,
the
meat
of
this
bill
resides
in
171.1455
and
implements
de-escalation
techniques
provides
for
where
it
is
appropriate
for
that
individual
to
use
force.
What
sorts
of
things
have
to
happen
prior
to
that
talks
about
what
is
objectively
reasonable
under
the
circumstances
to
bring
people
under
arrest
talks
about
the
level
of
force
used?
C
It
retains
the
probable
cause
has
committed
a
felony
or
language
as
opposed
to
396,
which
makes
it
and
and
includes
the
remainder
of
the
language
that
talks
about
policies.
For
individuals
who
are
not
armed,
who
may
be
under
the
age
of
13,
over
70,
physically
frail,
mentally
or
physically
disabled
pregnant
suffering
from
a
mental
behavioral
health
issue
experiencing
a
medical
emergency,
and
so
I
guess
in
my
in
my
reading
of
it
we're
either
adopting
language
that
is
in
212
that
talks
about
171
and
outlines
the
use
of
force
where
it
is
appropriate.
C
What
sorts
of
techniques
have
to
be
employed
or
we
are
confining
it
to
what
is
currently
in
language
saying
it
has
to
be
and
and
then
adding.
The
word
imminent
and
so
to
me.
Ab396
refers
directly
to
the
meat
of
what
is
contained
in
senate
bill
212,
and
so
that's
at
least
where
I
don't
know.
If
maybe
conflict
is
the
right
word,
but
they're
doing
two
different
things,
and
so
I
guess
that's.
C
I
think
senator
harris
has
a
similar
question
to
had
a
similar
question
to
what
I
was
looking
at,
and
I
wanted
to
just
outline
that
so
that
we
can
also
get
some
indication
from
legal
about
how
that
would
all
interplay
together.
Because
I
see
these
as
amending
this
171
1455
one
way
and
then
another
way-
and
you
know
I
think
senator
harris
did
a
lot
of
work
to
put
in
quite
a
few
things
into
171
one
four,
five
five
and
this
seems
to
do
something
that
is
very
different.
G
I
think
that
the
word
imminent
is
critical
and
it's
another
tool
and
it's
a
standard
that
lvmpd
adopted,
and
I
don't
think
that
there's
a
problem
if
this,
if
they
are
the
gold
standard-
and
they
say
that
they
are
that
this
is
a
standard
that
they
can
add
in.
It's
not
doesn't
have
to
be
mutually
exclusive.
C
Now
I
I
definitely
appreciate
that
assemblyman
and
I
think
what
you're
what
you're
trying
to
accomplish
with
this
bill
is
is
what
we
should
what
we
have
been
focused
on,
what
we
should
be
focused
on,
and
I
think
you
make
excellent
points
that
even
came
up
in
this
committee
when
we
were
talking
about
you
know,
does
a
child
look
older
than
they
are?
C
Does
somebody
look
not
as
frail
when
they
might
be,
and
how
do
you
make
those
determinations
and
obviously
we
want
to
give
law
enforcement
the
tools
to
be
able
to
to
comply
with
those
things,
but
also
to
take
those
things
into
consideration,
because
it
does
play
a
factor
into
the
the
use
of
force?
I
guess
my
issue
is
that
in
this
bill,
we're
talking
about
doing
two
different
things
than
what
has
already
been
outlined
in
212
and
that's
a
policy
choice.
C
You
know
holding
officers
accountable,
that
there
shouldn't
be
a
risk
of
harm
if
we're
talking
about
the
use
of
deadly
force,
and
so
I
just
think
that
if
the,
if
we've
got
two
bills
that
are
doing
a
little
bit
opposite
things,
then
there's
a
policy
choice
that
has
to
be
made
there
and
that's
where
I
wanted
to
just
kind
of
outline
that.
But
I
think
you've
highlighted
a
lot
of
really
good
points
that
this
body
and
the
legislature
as
a
whole
should
definitely
take
into
consideration.
C
I
Thank
you,
chair
scheible
and
majority
leader,
ken
zarrow,
yes,
and
looking
at
sb
212,
as
was
currently
voted
out
of
assembly
judiciary
today,
based
on
the
mock-up.
It
does
look
like
both
sp
212
and
the
provisions
at
ab396
do
both
touch
on
nrs
171.1455.
I
However,
maybe
in
slightly
different
capacities,
so
I
do
believe
from
a
legal
standpoint.
They
could
be
read
together
if
both
bills
were
to
pass
in
the
current
form,
be
a
policy
choice
for
this
body.
I
B
Thank
you
very
much
chair
and
my
question.
Thank
you,
assemblewoman,
for
bringing
the
bill
and
to
the
chair
of
assembly
judiciary
for
sponsoring
the
bill.
Mr
ishman
and
I
know
you've
worked
on
this
issue
for
many
years
and
you've
got
the
experience
having
been
a
police
officer
for
so
many
years.
I
just
wonder
if
this
bill
were
to
pass.
Do
you
see
anything
that
would
hinder
you
as
a
law
enforcement
officer?
B
H
Thank
you
senator
I
I
do
believe
there.
There
is
a
difference
in
something
that
that
could
be
argued
and
at
under
the
nrs
171.
H
In
line
two.
H
If
you'll
look
at
or
should
I
say,
number
two
section
two,
it
does
not
mirror
the
section
one
piece
where
it
speaks
again
about
the
use
of
deadly
force,
and
so
we
had
asked
that
it's
a
and
especially
for
some
lay
folks
and
other
folks
and
or
imminent
addresses
and
makes
it
understood
that
we're
talking
about
in
both
lines,
serious
bodily
harm
and
the
use
of
deadly
force,
and
so
I
I
believe
that
makes
it
a
little
bit
stronger
and
for
the
average
folks
it
makes
it
a
little
bit
clearer.
H
H
Does
anyone
see
that
in
the
section
one
and
section
two
in
the
section
one,
it
reads
seriously
bodily
harm
or
the
use
of
deadly
force?
And
it
says
anne
poses
imminent
threat
to
seriously
bodily
harm
only,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
covered
on
in
both
scenarios
seriously
bodily
harm
and
the
threat
of
deadly
force.
F
F
F
As
well
as
suppressing
a
riot
and
in
protecting
against
imminent
threat
or
imminent
threat
to
life
and
replacing
it
with
171
1455
and
then
under
this
bill,
you
know,
since
we
weren't
looking
at
the
prior
senate
bill,
we're
making
this
in
jun
or
conjunctive
that
they
have
to
involve
a
a
person.
Who's
committed,
a
felony,
and,
as
I
understand
this,
this
is
a
recent
felony,
not
somewhat
not
an
escaped
convict,
but
someone
who's
convicted
of
felony,
which
involves
the
infliction
or
threat
of
serious
bodily
harm
and
poses
an
imminent
threat.
F
So,
if
you
have
say
a
child
molester
who
has
molested
a
number
of
children,
they've
been
convicted.
They've
escaped
from
custody
they're
a
current
risk
they're
in
a
neighborhood,
and
you
can't
use
a
tactic
that
might
and
I'm
thinking
in
in
terms
of
a
chase.
If
you've
got
a
patrol
vehicle
who
wants
to
move
his
patrol
vehicle
in
the
path
of
the
individual,
that's
deadly
force.
F
You
can't
stop
him.
So,
as
I
read
this,
it's
it
becomes.
F
G
Thank
you
senator
pickard,
for
the
question
I'd
like
to
address
the
first
comment
that
you
made,
which
is
that
media
has
sensationalized
a
situation.
G
G
We
have
come
before
legislative
bodies
like
this
one.
We
have
come
before
federal
bodies
and
we
have
been
talking
and
fussing
and
telling
people
for
generations
that
there
is
a
problem
and
now
that
we
have
camera
phones
and
people
are
speaking
these
things
publicly
and
they
can
be
posted
on
social
media.
G
It's
not
since
is
not,
since
we're
not
trying
to
exaggerate
something.
It's
not
being.
G
G
G
If
there's
an
imminent
threat,
if
you
have
a
child
predator-
and
I
love
that-
that's
always
the
example-
that's
used,
and
I
want
you
to
know
that
in
my
community-
and
I
don't
know
about
yours-
we
have
sexual
predators
who
are
out
on
what
do
you
call
it
parole
all
throughout
my
community
because
they
have
to
have
some
place
to
live
and
just
because
they
are
sexual
predators
or
they're
out
of
jail.
G
If
they've
done
their
time
and
they're
free,
they
they
have
a
right
to
exist
and
if
they're
running
and
you're
trying
to
apprehend
them
does
not
mean
that
we
just
kill
them
because
they
are
not
the
best
of
people
right.
We
still
have
a
process
by
which
people
come
before
a
judge,
their
peers
and
are
tried
for
whatever
they
do.
So
I
think
that
it
is
not
a
it's.
It's
a
little
disingenuous
to
believe
that
the
only
thing
that
we
can
do
to
apprehend
people
is
to
shoot
them
all.
F
Let
me
let
me
circle
back
and
see
if
we
can
get
back
to
the
question.
My
point
was
that
the
media
has
sensationalized
or
to
use
a
different
word
has
spent
a
lot
of
time
in
the
public
space
talking
about
something
that
has
been
hidden
for
a
long
time.
Okay,
that
was
my
point
and.
F
F
and
there's
some
I'm
looking
at
senate
bill
212
and
how
we've
changed
that
it's
changed
significantly.
F
Would
not
this
then
preclude
apprehending
somebody
unless
you
could
use
non-lethal
force
only.
G
G
G
If
I'm
not
mistaken
and
shot,
eight
people
and
the
police
were
still
able
to
apprehend
him
and
bring
him
in
for
justice
before
his
peers
before
a
judge,
as
we
are
constitutionally
entitled
to
have
so
we
have
options
and
when
we
tell
our
police
and
we
when
we
when
we
tell
ourselves
that
the
only
way
that
we
can
apprehend
bad
people
is
to
kill
them,
I
think
that
we
are
or
that
we
have
to
inflict
a
serious
body
harm
or
we
have
to
use
deadly
force.
G
G
Because
many
people
seem
to
be
able
to
be
arrested
and
live
to
tell
about
it.
But
we
seem
to
see
only
certain
folks
who
end
up
being
dead
instead
of
arrested,
and
we
want
there
to
just
be
that
simple
point
of
time
to
think
about
what
they
are
doing,
to
pause,
to
consider
their
options
and
to
bring
people
in
alive
to
be
judged
by
their
peers.
H
I
believe
there
was
just
a
case
yesterday
or
the
day
before,
where
police
made
an
apprehension
where
that's
what
you're
speaking
about
where
perhaps
deadly
force
might
have
been
used,
but
because
of
the
climate
now
they
were
able
to
apprehend
this
person
without
using
deadly
force
and
and
I'd
like
to
just
take
you
back
for
a
while
for
those
who
weren't
around
in
2005.
H
When
I
started
on
this
quest,
it
was
a
young
man,
suave
lopez.
Now
he
was
no
good
person
at
all,
but
he
was
handcuffed
and
escaped
and
was
shot
in
the
back
escaping
where
I
come
from.
They
say
he's
either
fleeing
it's
either
flight
or
fight,
you're,
handcuffed
and
running
away
you're
in
a
flight
mode.
H
You
are
no
immediate
threat
to
anyone
at
that
point,
and
I
do
believe
our
federal
law
agrees
with
that,
but
to
go
ahead
and
leave
this
open
I'll,
give
you
my
take
on
it
of
being
a
police
officer
and
being
john
q,
public
and
black
it.
It
could
possibly
open
up
for
those
road
cops
and
that's
what
I'm
really
talking
about.
H
This
could
give
them
an
unfair
advantage
like
well
I'll,
just
let
them
escape
and
shoot
them
just
let
them
run,
and
then
I
would
question
a
lot
of
these
times
that
this
occurs.
It
is
not
a
description
of
a
felon.
Some
of
these
things
are
real
time
and
now
what
you
have
is
a
fleeing
suspect.
H
Now,
every
cop
responding
may
not
have
that
information
and
understand
that
this
just
happened.
So
you
don't
have
a
fleeing
felon.
You
have
a
fleeing
suspect
and
it
may
in
fact,
even
be
the
wrong
person.
The
stall
was
burglarized
and
some
candy
and
other
stuff
was
stolen,
but
they
run
and
then
some
just
run
because
police
are
coming,
but
they
may
look
like
the
description
that
came
out.
H
There's
there's
a
problem
there
and
I
I
agree
that
that
extra
second
to
consider
you
know
whether
this
is
the
right
thing
to
do
ought
to
be
taken.
If
there's
no
doubt
in
my
mind-
and
I
don't
want
to
make
it
easy
for
cops-
I
can't
I
can't
catch
him
and
you
know
some
of
the
stereotypical
statements.
H
You
know
I
can't
catch
that
jack
rabbit
or
whatever
you
know.
So
it's
easy
just
shoot
them.
Let
them
escape
and
shoot
them.
I
I
think
that's
something
and
I'm
just
being
forward
thinking,
I'm
not
saying
that
that
would
happen,
although
I
believe
it
could,
but
if
we
could
close
that
we'd
never
even
have
to
face
that
anymore.
It's
just
wrong.
You
don't
shoot
the
fleeing
suspect,
not
posing
an
immediate
threat
of
danger
or
harm
to
the
police
officer
or
others.
J
I
do
you
and
I
had
a
very
interesting
conversation
in
your
office,
and
I
just
I
guess
it
really
boils
down
to.
We
just
see
things
like
totally
differently
in
in
this,
so
you
know
I
I
see
a
different
world
than
you
do
I
mean
as
far
as
how
the
police
are
treated
and
how
the
police
are
behaving.
J
You
know,
I
think
we
have
in
my
mind,
we
have
handcuffed,
is
a
mild
world.
We
have.
We
have
restricted
the
ability
of
police
to
do
their
duty
to
such
an
extent
that,
in
my
opinion,
cops
nowadays
are
afraid
to
use
any
force
even
when
they
legitimately
should
use
it,
and
public
safety
has
been
compromised
and
officer.
Safety's
been
compromised
and
you
know
we've
got
it
we're
taken
out
of
there
the
ability
to
deal
with
with
riots.
J
J
I
have
a
real
hard
time
with
these
kind
of
bills,
because
it's
so
easy
for
me
sitting
here
in
my
little
suit
in
a
nice,
safe
environment
to
say,
is
it
it
really
imminent
threat?
Did
the
guy
have
mental
illness?
You
know
we
ask
an
officer
in
the
field
to
do
so
much
and
make
such
draconian
decision
making
in
such
tiny
windows
and
if
they
fail,
they
can
get
killed
pit
other
people
get
harmed.
So
I
just
I
I
guess
the
question
in
my
mind
is
it's
almost
you
know
we.
J
We
have
we've
defunded
the
police,
we've
fired
officers
or
chiefs
of
police
in
big
cities
and
we've
seen
a
huge
spike
in
murders
in
those
cities
predominantly
of
young
black
males.
You
know
it's
sort
of
like.
Is
there
any
connection
between
the
fact
that
we've
removed
law
enforcement
in
those
areas?
So
I
for
me
with
the
bill.
I
I
just
it's
just
another
one
of
these:
these
sort
of
anti-police
bills.
It's
always
the
cops
fault,
they're,
always
the
ones
that
are
abusing
force
or
doing
that.
So
I
all
with
a
sincere
apology.
J
I
just
can't
support
this
because
to
me
you
actually
end
up
harming
the
very
people
that
you
think
you're
going
to
protect
the
more
we
we
defund
the
police,
we
more.
We
make
them
so
they're,
just
almost
paranoid
to
stand
up
and
do
what
needs
to
be
done.
In
some
circumstances,
the
more
people
are
harmed
that
they're
there
to
protect.
J
A
Sure
so
there
were
a
lot
of
comments
in
there
and
there
I
think
there
was
a
question
buried
in
there
that
was
not
relevant
to
the
bill,
so
I
will
leave
it
up
to
the
presenters.
If
you
want
to
respond
to
the
comments
and
or
answer
the
question,
absolutely
you
have
the
floor
to
do
so,
and
if
you
choose
to
decline
then
we
will
simply
move
on.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
senator
hansen,
and
I
I
understand
that
this
is
a.
G
This
is
a
difficult
conundrum
that
we
find
ourselves
in,
and
I
think
that
one
of
the
things
that
we
know
about
the
history
of
this
country,
at
least
I
do-
is
that
there
is
never
a
a
simple
solution.
G
Oftentimes
people
talk
about
the
crime
and
and
and
in
inner
cities
and
young
black
men
dying
and
the
gun,
violence
in
those
cities,
and
they
don't
do
the
backtrack.
G
The
problems
that
we
see
in
chicago,
for
instance,
didn't
happen
yesterday,
a
day
before
five
years
ago,
those
issues
go
back
50
years
or
so,
and
they
have
to
do
with
gang
violence
that
didn't
even
start
in
the
black
community
and
if
you
do
a
little
reading,
you'd
be
surprised
how
that
evolved.
My
husband
and
his
family
are
from
chicago
and
it's
a
hell
of
a
tale
how
that
happened
and
what
is
happening:
the
defunding,
the
lack
of
jobs,
the
lack
of
opportunity,
the
segregation.
G
That's
what
feeds
into
a
lot
of
this
so
we
can
and
and
for
someone
to
say
well,
we've
defunded
the
police,
which
really
is
not
true.
If
you
look
at
the
numbers
of
dollars
that
are
going
to
police,
you
can't
even
you
have
to
study
over
a
significant
amount
of
time,
at
least
to
get
some
numbers
straight
to
even
determine
whether
or
not
crime
has
gone
up
in
those
communities.
You
just
can't
go
by
two
or
three
months.
You
really
have
to
do
some
study
in
order
for
it
to
be
legitimate.
G
We
don't
do
we
don't
put
out
any
studies
here
unless
something
is
is
studied
for
two
years
and
then
we
can
know
because
we
can
track
the
spikes.
The
ups
and
downs.
G
G
I
have
friends
who
are
law
enforcement
and
I
would
never
want
to
put
them
in
harm's
way,
but
many
of
them
are
black
and
they
have
a
different
perspective
and
they
act
a
different
way
when
they're
doing
what
they're
doing,
because
they
see
themselves-
and
when
we
are
asking
our
police
to
be
con
to
to
be
concerned,
is
not
that
we
don't
want
them.
G
Murder
that
were
that,
ran
that
left
and
were
apprehended
and
they're
alive,
and
it's
not
because
the
police
were
handcuffed
or
didn't,
have
a
means
to
capture
them,
but
in
their
minds
they
chose
a
different
path
on
how
they
were
going
to
go
about
apprehending
and
we're
hoping
that
this
legislation
will
just
make
it
a
part
of
training.
Make
it
a
part
of
the
mindset
that
you
think
before
you
act,
and
that's
all
that
we
want-
and
I
thank
you
ma'am
for
the
time
and
are
we
close.
H
Yes,
yes,
madam
chad,
I
would
just
ask
a
question
now
so
that
I'm
clear
again,
I'm
not
an
attorney.
But
someone
has
said
to
me
that
if
we
take
out
the
ore
which
was
asked
and
just
left
the
and
that
that
covered
both
section,
one
and
two
is:
is
that?
Actually
what
we're
saying?
Because
that
was
my
concern-
that
it
applied
to
both
and
not
just
one
and
not
two.
I
Thank
you,
chair
scheibel.
The
bill
is
as
currently
written,
mr
eschmann
you're
correct.
It's
deleting
the
or
and
adding
the,
and
so
that
subsections
one
and
two
would
be
read:
conjunctively,
meaning
that
you'd
have
to
have
both
the
commission
of
a
felony
and
possess
an
imminent
threat
of
harm
of
serious
bodily
harm
to
the
peace
officer
or
others.
So,
as
currently
written
under
the
bill,
it
would
be
an
and
would
require
both
subsection
one
and
two
to
be
read.
Conjunctively.
A
So,
okay,
I
I
also
have
a
question
about
this
bill
and
I
likewise
I
appreciate
you
sitting
in
the
hot
seat
and
taking
these
questions
and
I
have
been
looking
for
another
part
of
the
nrs
or
maybe
I
am
just
misreading
this,
but
the
way
that
I
reason
through
the
replacement
of
orr
with,
and
it
requires
that
the
person
has
already
that
the
police
officer
has
probable
cause
to
believe.
So.
A
G
Madam
chair
chandra
summers:
armstrong
for
the
record.
I
am
only
reading
what
is
here
and
I
don't
know
all
of
171.1455.
G
What
is
deleted
is
what
was
previously
two
and
three,
and
what
is
remaining
is
is
just
the
apprehension
portion
of
it.
So,
no
matter
what
no
matter,
for
whatever
reason
a
person
is
being
apprehended
that
their
needs.
These
things
need
to
be
applied.
G
That's
that's
my
reading.
I
could
be
wrong.
I
think
chair
yeager's,
hello,
he's
here
and
if
I'm
incorrect,
I'm
sure
he
can
correct
that
for
me,
but
my
my
under
my
reading
is
that
this
is
any
escape,
no
matter
what
the
person
is
accused
of,
that
any
escape
would
have
this
procedure
of
whether
or
not
they
are
an
imminent
threat
to
someone.
A
A
If
the
officers
cannot
prevent
that
person
from
killing
their
victim
without
using
deadly
force,
they
would
have
to
wait
until
that
person
who
was
threatening
to
kill
someone
else
had
committed
a
felony
causing
substantial
bodily
harm
or
the
infliction
of
a
serious
threat
of
force
before
they
would
be
justified
in
utilizing
deadly
force.
To
stop
that
person.
G
Absolutely
not
the
moment
that
so
a
similar
example
was
used
when
we
were
in
the
assembly.
If
someone
comes
into
this
building
and
they
take
one
of
us
put
their
arm
around
my
neck,
they
don't
like
me.
G
G
A
Person
but
the
felony
hasn't
been
committed
at
this
point
in
time.
Let
me
give
you
another
example
and
I'll
I'll
use
an
example
that
I.
H
Yes,
if
I
may,
under
tennessee
versus
ghana,
it
is
federal
law
that
you
do
not.
If
there
is
an
instance
where
someone
is
pointing
a
weapon
that
you
can
protect
yourself
and
or
others
yeah,
you
reasonably
believe
a
pose
an
imminent
threat
of
death
or
danger.
H
So
that
is
a
a
federal
mandate.
That's
under
tennessee
versus
ghana
and
that's
a
in
new
york.
That's
why
you
don't
shoot
fleeing
suspects
because
they
honor
tennessee
versus
ghana
in
its
entirety.
H
H
The
point-
and
maybe
it's
irrelevant
at
this
point-
but
my
point
was
like
I
said:
if
someone
gets
a
radio
call
and
they're
responding,
you
don't
have
any
history
on
this
person,
you're
chasing
a
suspect
and
not
a
felon,
and
I'm
not
trying
to
belabor
anything,
I'm
just
bringing
that
up.
Hopefully,
that'll
just
sink
in
and
thanks
again.
G
I
understand
the
the
example
that
you
are
giving,
but
in
any
situation
where
there
is
an
imminent
threat
of
bodily
harm
and
someone's
life
is
at
stake,
of
course,
we
expect
the
police
to
do
what
they
can.
We
are
when,
but
when
someone
is
an
imminent
threat,
I
think
we
know
what
the
difference
is.
If
someone
is
pointing
a
gun
at
someone,
that's
an
imminent
threat.
G
I
think
even
even
the
bill
that
senator
harris
brought,
she
speaks
about
imminent
threats.
We
you
don't.
You
know
her.
The
bill
went
through
if
a
person's
going
to
commit
suicide
and
they're
not
threatening
someone
else.
We
understand
what
an
imminent
threat
is,
and
I
think
that
when
we
try
to
dissect
this,
as
if
a
human
brain
cannot
have
two
concurrent
two
consecutive
thoughts
to
make
a
decision,
we
we
are
pretending
like
we're,
not
rational
people.
G
We
are
rational
people
if,
if
I'm
a
police
officer-
and
you
are
in
a
situation
where
someone
is
pointing
a
gun
at
you
immediately-
you
are
in
imminent
danger
and
I'm
going
to
try
and
protect
your
life
period.
So
I.
A
They
are
not
allowed
to
use
that
deadly
force.
Unless
the
person
they're
about
to
use
the
deadly
force
against
has
already
committed
a
felony
which
involves
the
infliction
or
threat
of
serious
bodily
harm
or
the
use
of
deadly
force.
And
the
officer
has
probable
cause
to
believe
that
they
have
committed
that
felony.
A
So
I
I
understand
that
that
in
concept
we
can
agree
on
what
we
want
an
officer
to
do.
But
the
law
has
to
reflect
that
consensus,
and
I
don't
think
this
law
or
this
bill
reflects
that
consensus,
because
I
believe-
and
maybe
legal
could
also
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong-
that
there
is
a
prerequisite
that
the
person
that
the
officer
have
probable
caused
to
believe
that
the
person
they're
about
to
use
deadly
force
against
has
already
committed
a
felony
involving
the
infliction
of
threat
or
threat
of
serious
bodily
harm
or
the
use
of
deadly
force.
I
Thank
you,
chair
schaebel.
Yes,
I
believe
your
interpretation
of
this
bill
is
is
correct.
I'd
also
like
to
point
out,
though,
that
there
are
other
statutes
at
play
that
aren't
necessarily
in
this
bill.
For
instance,
200.120
is
justifiable
homicide
by
any
person
and
that's
the
killing
of
a
human
being
in
self-defense
or
in
defense
of
an
occupied
habitation
motor
vehicle
against
another
person.
I
A
Thank
you
and
I
think
that
there
I
think
it's
bad
policy
to
start
trying
to
apply
the
standards
for
justifiable
homicide
that
apply
to
everybody
to
peace
officers.
There's
a
reason
that
we
separate
those
statutes-
and
we
spell
it
out
for
peace
officers,
because
we
do
hold
them
to
a
different
standard.
A
A
I
mean
walk
me
through
it,
you're
a
police
officer,
you
utilize
deadly
force,
you
kill
somebody
who's,
not
yet
committed
a
felony,
but
you
do
it
because
you're
preventing
him
or
her
from
taking
somebody
else's
life,
and
you
have
to
utilize
this
statute
to
justify
your
actions
or
the
nrs
at
all.
How
do
you
justify
that
with
this
language.
G
G
A
I
I
appreciate
your
response
and
I
do
appreciate
you
engaging
in
the
conversation
it
it's
tough,
but
it's
necessary.
So
if
there
aren't
any
yes
go
ahead.
H
Oh
no,
I
was
going
to
say
I
I
was
still
trying
to
wrap
my
head
around
just
the
and
part
and
if,
in
my
opinion,
the
and
covers
of
both
areas,
then
I
think
this
is
something
that
I
could
possibly
live
with
as
long
as
it
included,
and
it
has
it
in
there.
H
My
biggest
concern
was
the
imminent
threat
of
danger,
and
that
needs
to
be
a
controlling
factor
in
the
equation,
and
if
that
is
the
case
and
both
areas
are
covered,
then
I
could
live
with
this
and
we
need
something
in
place
right
now
and
we
could
live
to
fight
about
this
another
day
but
imminent
threat.
Language
has
to
be
in
there.
We
do
not
have
any
imminent
threat
in
our
laws
right
now,
and
so
that
needs
to
be
in
our
laws
and-
and
that
was
really
the
thing
that
drove
me
all
along.
A
A
I
I
There
were
some
comments
made
about
the
pendulum
swinging.
Perhaps
the
pendulum
needed
to
swing,
because
the
way
we
were
doing
things
wrong
in
the
past
wasn't
working.
We
trust
civilian
control
over
our
military,
perhaps
it's
time
for
civilians
to
exercise
some
more
control
over
our
police,
so
that
our
society
does
function
in
a
safer
more
just
way-
and
I
think
this
bill
goes
a
little
bit
towards
that
not
too
far
but
enough,
and
so
we're
grateful
that
she's
bringing
this
bill
and
urged
this
committee
to
pass
it.
L
Good
afternoon
kendra
burchie
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office,
thank
you,
tara,
scheible
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee.
I
also
want
to
thank
the
assemblywoman
for
bringing
this
important
bill
forward.
We
do
believe
that
this
is
an
extension
of
the
bills
that
were
passed
over
the
special
session,
which
were
from
the
community,
which
were
demanding
some
additional
support
and
accountability
that
several
members
of
both
bodies
indicated
that
they
would
be
bringing
forward.
So
we
do
really
appreciate
this
bill.
I
just
want
to
clarify
a
few
things.
L
First,
with
respect
to
section
one,
this
bill
does
not
eliminate
any
defenses
that
a
peace
officer
would
have
if
there
were
to
proceed
to
trial.
I
believe
that
mr
anthony
mentioned
some
of
them,
but
also
things
like
self-defense,
so
those
would
not
be
hampered
by
this
bill.
So
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that's
on
the
record,
then,
with
respect
to
section
two
first,
I
want
to
turn
to
senator
pickard's
question.
I
believe
that
there
might
be
some
confusion
between
at
the
use
of
deadly
force
versus
the
use
of
a
deadly
weapon.
L
That
is
the
distinction
for
the
car,
and
so
actually
you
can
use
the
car
to
ram
and
blockade
using
those
police
methods
for
to
effectuate
a
dui
arrest.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that's
clear
on
the
record
that
those
procedures
are
not
hindered
by
this
bill
as
well.
L
We
do
agree
that
the
term
imminent
is
extremely
important
and
I
just
pulled
up
metro's
use
of
force
policy
because
thankfully
it
is
online
while
we
were
engaged
in
this
discussion.
Not
only
do
they
have
the
word
imminent
threat,
specifically
when
trying
to
prevent
an
effectuated
arrest
from
someone
who's
trying
to
escape.
They
also
include
the
violent
felon.
L
I
believe
that
was
discussed
as
well
in
the
discussion
with
senator
senator
scheible,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that's
clear
on
the
record,
and
so
we
do
believe
that
is
important
because
at
this
point,
someone
if
they
haven't
been
arrested,
they're
still
presumed
innocent
under
the
eyes
of
the
law,
and
we
are
now
talking
about
whether
or
not
we're
giving
police
officers
the
right
to
potentially
kill
and
take
away
a
life.
And
so
that's
why.
L
D
D
M
First,
we
also
want
to
profusely
thank
the
assemblywoman
for
presenting
this
very
important
bill.
Today,
a
plan
we
were
to
structurally
transform
nevada's
criminal
justice
system
by
organizing
with
people
who
have
direct
experience
with
mass
incarceration
and
their
families.
This
body
promised
them
real
criminal
justice
reform.
This
session
and
ab396
is
a
bill
that
communities
who
are
disproportionately
impacted
by
police
violence
want
you
to
pass,
do
right
by
the
community
today
and
move
this
bill
forward.
Thank
you.
D
N
N
N
They
had
just
searched
him,
so
they
knew
for
a
fact
that
he
did
not
have
a
weapon
and
was
not
an
imminent
danger,
but
they
chose
to
shoot
him
in
the
back
anyway
and
I
don't
think
that's
the
kind
of
policing
we
want.
I
know
a
lot
of
people
have
this
image
of
the
police
officer
as
a
sheriff
from
a
western
movie
riding
in
with
this
white
hat
and
shining
star
to
save
the
day
and
that's
a
great
ideal,
and
I
think
we
should
strive
for
that,
but
that
sheriff
john
wayne.
N
D
D
M
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
holly
welborn
policy
director
for
the
aclu
nevada,
always
difficult
to
follow
jim
hoffman.
Thank
you
for
that
excellent
testimony.
I
have
a
few
points
to
make,
so
forgive
me,
as
I
shuffle,
through
a
few
different
documents
that
I'm
looking
at,
but
let's
start
with
the
purpose
here.
Let's
talk
about
some
numbers
between
2005
and
2020,
121
officers
had
been
arrested
for
murder
or
manslaughter.
M
Only
44
were
convicted,
often
of
a
lesser
charge,
and
approximately
only
30
percent
of
those
cases
involved
a
victim
who
was
armed.
So
that
means
a
person
who
was
exhibiting
the
same
amount
of
force
that
was
inflicted
upon
them
that
led
to
their
death.
M
What
this
bill
does
is
it
provides
that
accountability
that
we
have
been
asking
for
in
coalition
community
advocates
have
been
asking
for
when
we
look
at
the
justifiable
homicide
statutes,
there
are
a
variety
of
circumstances
that
are
laid
out.
That
simply
should
not
be
the
public
policy
of
the
state.
The
public
policy
of
the
state
should
be
to
impose
a
high
standard
on
law
enforcement,
the
highest
standard
possible
to
prevent
injury
and
death
at
the
hands
of
state
actors.
M
Just
as
jim
hoffman
said
we
are,
we
need
to
hold
law
enforcement
to
as
high
as
standard
as
possible
early
in
the
negotiations
on
senate
bill
212,
we
had
talked
about
this
provision
and
the
justice,
reform
and
accountability
alliance
had
proposed
language
that
stated,
a
peace
officer
may
use
deadly
force
only
if
there
is
probable
cause
to
believe
that
the
individual
poses
an
imminent
threat
of
death
to
the
peace
officer
or
to
others.
M
Perhaps
language
like
that
could
help
clarify
what
we
are
talking
about
in
section
two,
but
I
think
what
is
operative
here
is
at
what
point
is:
are
these
homicides
justifiable
and
that
we
cannot
lose
sight
of
that?
For
these
reasons,
we
encourage
your
support
and
encourage
you
to
move
this
bill
forward.
Thank
you.
D
O
O
We
rise
in
strong
support
of
ab-396.
We
commend
saunders
summers,
armstrong
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
today
to
tighten
the
protocols
for
the
use
of
force
by
law
enforcement
officers.
The
sadly
become
too
common
that
unnecessary
and
unjustifiable
violence
is
used
by
some
officers
of
a
tactic
to
instill
fear
rather
than
suppress
a
legitimate
threat
to
public
safety.
Assemblywoman
summers-
armstrong
has
worked
hard
on
this
bill
stipulate
that
there
must
be
an
imminent
threat
to
public
safety
before
deadly
force
is
used.
It
should
not.
O
It
should
not
be
so
much
to
ask
that
our
police
officers
were
tasked
with
protecting
a
community
not
simply
kill
or
maim
someone
at
the
first
resort,
as
we
as
the
country,
reckoned
with
the
derek
chauvin
trial
over
the
murder
of
george
floyd.
It's
time
for
a
serious
conversation
about
use
of
force
policy.
Chauvin
was
not
the
first
and
not
the
only
officer
to
use
inappropriate
force
that
resulted
in
killing
someone
supposedly
in
their
control
or
custody.
It's
an
imperative
that
we
stop
cases
like
this
navy
396
is
a
step
towards
doing
that.
O
D
M
We
would
like
to
thank
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong
for
bringing
this
very
important
bill
forward.
We
strongly
support
ab
396,
and
we
would
just
like
to
echo
the
previous
comments
and
callers
that
have
made
their
comments.
To
simply
do
nothing
on
this
bill
is
allowing
what
is
going
on
to
continue,
and
that
is
simply
not
right.
M
People
need
to
be
held
accountable.
They
need
people
who
are
not
committing
crimes
who
are
not
holding
a
weapon.
M
We
really-
and
I
don't
believe
officers
in
those
particular
cases-
are
really
fearing
for
their
safety,
for
their
lives
should
allow
somebody
to
be
shot
and
killed,
particularly
if
they
are
handcuffed,
running
away
and
they
pose
no
threat
to
anyone.
Thank
you
have
a
good.
D
B
My
name
is
adrian
lowry:
a-d-r-I-a-n-l-o-w-r-y,
we've
seen
an
absolutely
tragic
amount
of
community
members,
family
members
and
neighbors
killed
in
the
state
put
spills
for
some
people
who
are
fleeing
and
preventing
them
from
being
killed
while
they're
running
away
it
seemed
fun.
Reading
the
bolts
demand
the
build
trust,
the
scenario
of
somebody
taking
a
hostage
and
pointing
a
gun
at
somebody,
as
somebody
said
after
after
asked.
B
Let's
share
that
this
is
narrowly
focused
on
a
person
who
is
fleeing,
so
I'm
asking
you
to
support
ab396
because
it
will
stabilize,
and
we
have
seen
a
lot
of
people
at
least
here
in
the
north,
killed
while
fleeing
the
police
and
thank.
D
K
A-N-N-E-M-A-R-I-E-G-R-A-N-T
sister
of
thomas
purdy,
murdered
by
reno
police
and
marshall
county
sheriff's
office
during
a
mental
health
crisis.
Thank
you.
Assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong
springing
ab
ab396
forward.
This
bill
is
about
preserving
the
sanctity
of
life,
not
putting
handcuffs
on
law
enforcement.
K
We
think
of
deadly
force
as
just
as
shooting,
but
we
know
from
the
trial
of
derek
chovin
that
horrible
restraints
or
a
higher
level
of
force.
When
my
brother
was
killed
by
police,
he
was
a
threat
to
no
one.
Perhaps
if
this
bill
was
in
place
in
2015,
my
brother
would
be
alive.
Mikaya
lee
a
young
18
year
old
african-american
teenager
in
crisis,
was
drove
away
from
police
and
was
shot
and
killed
by
them
immediately
when
he
was
not
a
threat,
an
eminent
threat
to
any
officer
at
the
time
his
vehicle
was
completely
disabled.
K
We
can't
have
police
being
judged
during
execution
and
we
have
a
justice
system
for
a
reason
officer.
Shay
missalanis
was
shot,
but
innocent,
jorge
gomez,
paid
for
the
hysteria
that
night
that
ran
through
lvmpd
the
pendulum
needed
to
swing
long
ago.
The
community
is
speaking.
Please
hear
them
and
act.
Don't
take
your
personal
feelings
about
things.
You
need
to
listen
to
the
community
and
do
what
they
want.
Sariah
shepherd
would
be
alive.
Five-Year-Old
soraya
shepard
would
be
alive
that
ab3
96
been
in
effect
on
428-21.
K
When
rpd
and
spd
chased
the
man
wanted
on
just
warrants.
He
ran
a
red
light.
They
have
a
helicopter
in
washoe
county.
We
have
plate
readers
that
little
girl
should
be
alive.
Her
family
is
devastated,
police
kill,
innocent
civilians
through
reckless
chases
chasing
people
every
year,
hundreds
and
hundreds.
I
urge
you
to
go
to
fatalingcounters.org
and
search
by
vehicle
desk.
D
D
B
N
N
All
the
time
appreciate
you
and
everything
you
do
for
the
community.
I
definitely
urge
your
support
on
this
bill.
It
is
not.
It
is
not
handcuffing
the
police.
This
is
bringing
accountability
forward
and
making
everything
more
transparent
and
making
these
criminals,
as
some
senators
there
are
stating
today
hold
them
accountable.
This
bill
is
not
a
free
giveaway,
making
things
easy
for
these
criminals,
as
some
of
these
senators
have
brought
forth.
N
So
please
support
this
bill
and,
and
we
support
annbury
grant
her
brother
and
susan
and
all
the
other
families
going
forward
who
this
bill
could
support
and
hopefully,
going
forward.
Thank
you
so.
A
Thank
you
so
much
just
to
reiterate.
We
have
taken
all
of
the
callers
who
were
in
the
queue
to
testify
in
support
of
ab396.
So
now
we
will
move
to
people
testifying
in
opposition
to
ab-396.
I
don't
see
anybody
in
the
room
to
give
such
testimony,
so
we
will
go
directly
to
the
phone
lines.
Please.
Mr.
D
N
That
word
is,
and
this
requires
number
one
and
number
two
before
an
officer
may
use
deadly
force.
I
had
a
very
lengthy
granular
example
to
try
yet
again
to
get
that
point
across,
but
this
committee
gets
it.
You
truly
understand
the
critical
error
with
the
word
and
in
this
bill,
so
we
will
submit
to
your
common
sense
here.
Thank
you,
chair
scheible,.
D
M
We
certainly
appreciate
the
intent
of
the
bill
and
we
do
not
object
the
concept
that
an
imminent
threat
should
be
in
play
where
an
officer
uses
potentially
deadly
force.
Our
opposition
is
not
an
effort
to
limit
police
accountability,
but
is
instead
based
upon
the
plain-leaning
rule
of
statutory
interpretation,
that's
applied
by
our
court.
There
is
simply
a
disconnect
between
the
expressed
intent
of
the
presenters
on
this
bill
and
its
actual
language,
as
mr
spratly
conveyed.
M
Our
primary
concern
is
tied
to
the
question
I
think
first
raised
by
senator
picker,
I
think
answered
by
it,
mr
anthony
initially
regarding
section
2,
sub,
1
and
2,
where
in
the
use
of
the
word
and
is
used,
conjunctively,
not
disjunctively,
and
it
appears
to
prevent
an
officer
from
appropriately
reacting
to
an
imminent
threat
of
serious
bodily
harm.
If
the
person
has
not
committed
a
felony
that
falls
within
the
narrow
parameters
of
section
2,
sub
1.
M
police
officers
should
be
able
to
defend
themselves
and
others
whenever
there
is
an
imminent
threat
of
bodily
harm,
regardless
of
the
class
of
time
that
may
have
brought
them
to
the
scene.
I
think
we
may
all
agree
about
that,
but
that's
not
how
this
bill
reads
as
it
reads
right
now
the
word
and
makes
the
bill
inconsistent
with
the
right
of
self-defense
applicable
under
nrs
chapter
200..
M
D
O
Hi,
my
name
is
deontay
schwartz
sayer
d,
I
capital
a
n
t
e
s,
w
a
r
t,
z,
f,
a
g
e
r.
Thank
you
for
taking
my
call,
I'm
actually
com
calling
in
to
support
it.
It
didn't
put
me
in
queue,
so
I,
if
I
would
be
allowed
to
just
use
a
brief
second
to
show
my
support
and
then
you
can
move
all
the
oppositions.
A
O
Thank
you
so
much.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill
to
the
table
and
I
would
like
to
strongly
urge
you
from
myself
and
the
people
in
our
community
and
our
state
to
pass
this
bill.
This
bill
is
not
only
very
important
but
very
valuable
to
the
step
of
change
that
our
community
is
taking
towards
the
police.
Use
of
force
acts.
Okay,
we're
not
trying
to
handcuff
the
police.
O
No
one
is
going
to
sit
here
and
scream
that
we
don't
need
the
police,
but
we
are
going
to
sit
here
and
scream
that
we
need
something
some
type
of
language
with
our
legislative
that
stops
the
injustices,
not
just
prolongs
and
not
just
puts
it
off
until
something
else
happens,
and
then
it
comes
back.
We
need
language,
that's
in
there
constantly
approved
improving
day
by
day,
not
just
sitting
there
growing
old.
We
have
to
make
amendments
10
years
later.
We
want
this
bill
to
grow
and
be
approved,
and
we
can
argue
about.
O
We
can
argue
about
the
you
know
specifics
later,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
it
comes
down.
To
one
thing,
is
this
person
going
to
hurt
me
or
somebody
else
right
this?
Second,
if
not,
there's
no
need
to
use
your
weapon.
You
have
tasers,
you
have
training,
you
have
they.
They
took
that
oath
and
took
on
the
badge
to
know
what
they
were
going
to
endure
and
the
challenges
they're
going
to
take
every
day,
and
I
support
them
for
that.
Go
ahead.
O
Take
those
challenges
because
I
didn't,
but
I
am
asking
that
you
look
at
the
community
as
one
person
as
every
person
is
not
different
and
that
you
come
on
this.
You
go
on
to
a
scene
of
a
crime
or
a
possible
crime
or
emotional
breakdown,
with
your
open
mind
and
just
protect
our
community.
Please-
and
thank
you
again
and
please
approve
this
bill.
D
D
N
Good
afternoon
cher
scheible
leader,
canazarro
and
humble
honorable
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
corey
sulforino
c-o-r-e-y
s
is
in
sam-o-l
episode,
frank
e-r-I-n-o,
and
I
have
the
pleasure
of
representing
the
washington
county
sheriff's
office.
We
are
opposed
to
ab-396
because
it
compromises
public
and
officer
safety
in
accordance
with
nevada,
sheriffs
and
chiefs
and
nevada
district
attorneys
association
concerns.
The
use
of
deadly
force
is
an
officer's
last
option
period
no
officer
ever
wants
to
take
a
life.
N
Those
that
are
forced
to
take
a
life
must
forever
live
with
the
consequences
of
those
actions,
some
never
recover
from
that
and
are
forced
to
leave
a
job
of
stewardship
that
they
love
federal
case
law,
governs
use
of
deadly
force
and
has
specific
criteria
that
must
be
met
to
pursue.
There
is
no
freelancing
and
use
of
deadly
force
encounters
in
most
instances.
Officers
only
have
a
fraction
of
a
second
to
make
a
life-or-death
decision.
N
Our
officers
are
well
equipped,
but
there
is
not
one
magic
tool
that
makes
every
use
of
force
encounter
successful.
Some
of
the
examples
used
in
this
build
presentation
are
simply
not
factually
sound
and
not
in
line
with
our
training
philosophy
or
our
performance
in
the
field
and
study.
After
study,
assaults
on
law
enforcement
have
gone
up
exponentially
with
officers
hesitant
to
use
lawful
force
when
legally
justified
to
do
so.
N
Use
of
body-worn
cameras
deployed
in
the
field
have
further
limited
the
use
of
forced
cases
and
give
us
an
excellent
training
tool
to
evaluate
train
and
hold
our
law
enforcement
accountable
for
their
actions
in
the
field.
I
just
had
the
pleasure
of
defending
my
thesis
and
earning
a
masters
of
science
and
criminology
at
the
university
of
louisville
and
the
consequences
of
negative
effect
responses
on
police
legitimacy.
N
I
have
a
ton
of
resources,
peer-reviewed
articles
and
case
studies
available
to
share
with
the
committee
on
use
of
force,
strain
theory
and
the
role
it
plays
in
officer
and
citizen
encounters.
The
washoe
county
sheriff's
office
is
not
perfect,
but
it
is
committed
to
the
community.
It
serves.
We
listen
to
our
stakeholders
and
deploy
resources
where
they
are
most
effective
and
efficient
to
earn
the
respect
of
our
citizenry
and
further
enhance
our
social
efficacy
with
the
public
we
serve.
N
N
D
N
Good
afternoon
cherish
eibal
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
aj
dilap,
that's
the
last
name,
phonetically
david,
easy
link
and
adam
paul
of
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
We
are
in
opposition
at
ab
396
for
many
of
the
reasons
spoken
of
prior
in
opposition
on
behalf
of
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
We
are
pleased
that
much
of
our
current
use
of
force
policies
have
been
implemented
in
this
session.
However,
we
feel
that
this
one
provides
more
confusion
than
it
does
clarity.
N
A
Right,
thank
you
very
much
so
again
to
clarify
for
the
record.
We
have
taken
testimony
from
everybody
who
called
in
in
opposition,
so
we
will
now
move
to
neutral
testimony
on
ab396.
I
don't
see
anybody
in
the
room
to
give
testimony,
so
we
will
go
directly
to
the
phones.
Please.
Mr
kyle.
D
D
P
P
Thank
you,
chair
scheible,
I'm
calling
with
the
mass
liberation
organization
or
project
as
well
to
thank
the
assembly
woman
for
presenting
this
bill
and
for
heating
calls
from
community
members
to
do
something
vital
and
important
to
address
police
accountability
and
police
brutality.
P
P
We
know
from
other
legislation
that's
been
proposed
in
in
during
this
session
that,
for
instance,
police
over
police
in
poorer
zip
codes
and
because,
where
they're
predominantly
black
residents
for
the
enforcement
of
traffic
warrants
in
this
city,
we
already
have
evidence
that
shows
that
speaks
to
overpolicing
of
certain
communities.
P
Another
senator
spoke
about
how
this
bill
would
handcuff
police
forces,
and
I
think
it's
very
important
that
we
reject
categorically
that
assertion
and
the
spirit
of
what
the
senator
is
saying.
It's
quite
ironic,
and
quite
disrespectful
to
use
that
to
use
that
language
as
well,
especially
when
this
legislation
is
championed
and
and
and
supported
by
people
who
have
historically
been
subject
to
police
oppression.
So
in
case
we
didn't
know
the
people
most
likely
exposed
to
deadly
and
excessive
force
are
usually
already
disenfranchised
and
marginalized
by
society.
P
In
fact,
police
brutality
and
police
killing
shootings
is
a
leasing
leading
cause
of
death
for
for
young
people,
and
particularly
black
in
young
people
of
color.
One
in
one
thousand
black
men
are
killed
by
police,
there's,
actually
a
public
health
crisis
that
legislation
like
this
actually
addresses
and
seeks
to
prevent,
and
just.
Lastly,
because
I
know
I'm
out
of
time,
I
would
urge
the
com,
this
committee
to
to
take
a
different
route
than
seeming
to
care
more
about
the
power
to
kill
and
end
people's
lives
in
the
state
than
to
preserve
and
protect
them.
P
This
body
has
not
heard
the
bill
on
the
death
penalty,
and
now
we
see
quite
hearty
and
spirited
criticism
by
the
chair
and
vice
chair
when
it
comes
to
common
sense
legislation
that
would
save
people's
lives
and
go
a
long
way
to
to
fighting
for
eliminating
systemic
racism
in
in
police
forces
and
in
our
in
our
in
our
community.
Police
are
violence
workers,
and
we
need
to
remember
that.
P
D
D
A
G
You
know
last
year
this
body
prohibited
police
from
using
choke
holds,
but
they
can
be
used
if
a
policeman's
life
is
in
imminent
danger.
G
There
are
laws
that
equate
to
self-defense,
and
I
don't
think
that
we
can
look
at
one
area
of
the
law
in
isolation
and
not
realize
that
that
any
time
someone
is
accused
of
something
they
are
looking
at.
The
law
as
a
whole
and
different
chapters
of
the
law,
as
the
attorney
here
mentioned
earlier,
when
it
comes
to
self-defense,
would
also
apply.
G
So
these
these
statues
need
to
be
read
in
a
conjunction
mr
ishman.
Another
caller
mentioned
mr
suave
lopez,
and
this
bill
is
really
about
a
fleeing
person,
a
fleeing
felon,
it's
narrow
and
in
its
application,
and
I
think
that
we
need
to
keep
that
in
mind
and
recognize
how
it
is
being
what
it's
being
written
for
and
its
purpose.
G
G
A
Thank
you
so
much
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong.
We
also
appreciate
you
taking
the
time
out
of
what
is
a
busy
day.
We
know
to
to
be
here
to
answer
our
questions
to
engage
in
this
conversation
with
us,
and
we
appreciate
your
your
dedication
to
this
issue
and
I
share
your
hope
that
we
will
make
some
forward
movement,
maybe
with
some
further
conversations
to
that
end.
The
hearing
is
now
closed.
On
ab
396.
A
We
are
going
to
go
into
recess.
It
is
4,
30
p.m.
Right
now
what
I
will
do
the
will
be
in
recess
until
the
call
of
the
chair
in
order
to
give
you
some
ability
to
plan
your
lives.
I
will
promise
you
that
we
will
not
reconvene
before
5
30,
so
you
have
at
least
an
hour
I'm
looking
at
the
chair
of
assembly
judiciary.
A
I
don't
know
if
you
guys
are
going
to
go
back
into
session,
but
around
5
30
I'll,
take
a
look
at
what
other
committees
are
in
session
and
where
my
members
are
and
where
those
of
you
have
work
sessions
coming
up
are-
and
I
will
try
to
be
as
as
communicative
as
possible
to
get
everybody
back
here
sometime
after
5
30
for
the
continued
work
session,
and
I
thank
you
all
for
being
here.