►
From YouTube: 3/25/2021 - Senate Committee on Judiciary
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
A
Please
mark
by
sir
canizarro
present
as
she
arrives
and
I'll
try
to
make
community
as
well.
D
E
A
And
I
am
here,
thank
you.
We
are
also
joined
by
our
staff,
patrick
geinin
from
lcb,
and
our
committee
council
nick
anthony
remains
available
to
us.
Should
we
have
any
questions
for
him,
although
he
cannot
be
here
because
he
is
busy
drafting
legislation.
A
Pursuant
to
senate
standing
rule,
14
committee
members
must
vote
to
approve
the
drafting
of
legislative
measures
requested
by
the
senate
committee
on
judiciary
on
behalf
of
various
entities.
Please
remember:
a
vote
in
favor
does
not
indicate
your
support
for
the
bill,
but
merely
allows
the
bill
to
be
drafted
today.
I
request
the
committee's
approval
of
two
bdrs.
Both
are
from
the
interim
committee
on
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice.
A
A
F
G
D
H
A
Yes,
thank
you
and
with
that
of
the
motion
passes
to
draft
bdr5-498
and
s-500
also
before
we
get
to
our
two
bill
hearings
for
the
day,
I
would
like
the
record
to
reflect
that
vice
chair
canazaro
is
here
and
we
will
open
up
the
work
session
on
sb107.
G
E
E
The
next
item,
two
is
to
add
a
subsection
or
an
item
g
to
subsection
1.4
of
the
bill,
which
concerns
tolling
of
the
two-year
statute
of
limitations
and
jared
scheibel.
I
believe
that
we
have
mr
kemp
from
the
nja
here
today
to
discuss
the
amendment
and
explain
it
in
detail
to
the
committee
members.
That's
your
preference.
E
Chair
he
may
be
on
the
phone.
I
know
that
the
amendment
reflects
a
lot
of
talking
and
negotiations
between
stakeholders
and
I
well.
I
cannot
say
that
I
think
every
every
stakeholder
supportive.
I
believe
that
the
majority
of
folks
who
reached
out
to
me
and
to
mr
kent
miss
cardovani
are
supportive
of
this
amendment,
but
he
might
be
on
the
phone,
otherwise.
I
Yes,
chair
scible,
that
is
possible
if
I
could
just
have
the
name.
Once
again,
I
will
ask
to
see
if
he
is
in
the
list.
A
All
right,
we
are
looking
for
mr
jp
kemp.
E
I
I
All
right,
mr
kent,
please
press
star
six
to
unmute.
I
J
Okay,
madam
chair
and
good
afternoon
to
you
and
the
committee
members,
this
is
attorney
j.p
kemp,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
justice
association
here
to
speak
about
sb
107
and
the
amendments.
J
The
amendments
seek
to
clarify
that,
in
particular,
common
law,
wrongful
termination
claims
that
have
been
recognized
by
the
supreme
court
of
nevada
will
be
subject
to
a
two-year
statute
limitations,
but
that
time
will
be
told
during
the
time
period
which
the
any
complaint
or
charge
is
pending
before
an
administrative
agency
such
as
the
nevada,
equal
rights
commission,
so
that
a
person
does
not
have
to
file
their
their
common
law
retaliatory
or
wrongful
discharge
claim.
During
the
time
that
it's
still
being
considered
by
the
administrative
agency.
J
The
idea
is
to
get
the
timing
to
match
up
and
so,
for
example,
with
the
nevada,
equal
rights
commission
right
to
sue
notice,
to
give
someone
90
days
to
file
a
lawsuit
after
they
are
issued
that
right
to
sue
notice.
J
The
amendment
would
provide
90
days
plus
a
few
days
for
mailing
because
those
are
sent
out
by
mail
so
that
the
timing
would
match
up
with
the
timing
for
filing
the
common
law.
Wrongful
termination
claim
would
match
up
with
the
timing
for
bringing
the
discrimination
or
retaliation
claimants
recognized
by
the
anti-discrimination
statutes
in
chapter
613,
and
so
that's
the
purpose
of
the
amendment.
A
Agencies
right,
thank
you
so
much.
It
looks
like
we
do
have
a
couple
of
questions.
We
will
go
to
senator
picker.
First.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
mr
kemp,
thank
you
for
being
on,
and
I
appreciate
our
conversations
offline.
H
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
on
the
record
for
purposes,
because
this
is
something
that's
actually
apparently
contested
fairly
fairly
hotly
in
in
cases
where
there's
a
question
about
common
law,
we're
not
a
common
law
state.
We
haven't
generally
adopted
the
common
law,
but
where
the
supreme
court
has
specifically,
as
you
mentioned,
adopted
things
like
public
policy.
H
You
know
actions
against
public
policy
and
a
few
other
instances
that
this
mention
of
an
action
in
torque
for
common
law
or
wrongful
determination
isn't
intended
to
expand
and
adopt
through
the
back
door.
Through
this
statute
of
limitations,.
H
Sorry
I
was
muted,
I
I'm
not
sure
how
much
of
that
got
in.
H
A
H
Of
a
sudden
I
noticed
my
mute
button
was
on
and
I
hadn't
turned
it
on
so
anyway.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
clear
that,
when
we're
talking
about
adding
the
words
common
law,
wrongful
termination
we're
not
through
the
back
door,
adopting
the
common
law
for
all
things
term
or
employment,
but
we're
just
addressing
those
that
have
been
adopted
by
the
supreme
court
up
to
this
point
and
any
that
they
may
elect
to
in
the
future,
but
that
this
isn't
a
wholesale
adoption
with
common
load.
H
J
Chair
through
you
to
senator
pickard,
this
is
j.p
kemp
for
the
record,
yeah
senator
pickard
yeah.
Let
me
put
your
mind
at
ease.
What
all
that
sb
107
is
is
a
statute
of
limitations
bill.
It
doesn't
recognize
any
particular
causes
of
actions
or
claims.
It
only
identifies
the
time
limits
under
which
those
claims
can
be
brought
in
court.
J
For
example,
if
it
was
illegal
discrimination
on
the
basis
of
you
know,
age,
race,
religion,
national
origin,
gender,
disability,
or
if
it
would
violate
common
law,
public
policy,
strong
public
policy
principles,
and
that's
the
the
the
case
that
we're
talking
about
here,
they've
been
recognized
as
common
law
claims
by
the
supreme
court
nevada.
Then
again,
the
reason
it
says,
common
law
is
because
they
aren't
recognized
by
statute
by
the
legislature.
These
are.
J
Claims
that
the
court
has
created
through
its
inherent
common
law
powers
to
to
recognize
claims
that
violate
public
policy.
I
also
want
to
note
that
the
the
supreme
court
of
nevada
has
been
very
clear
that
these
exceptions
to
the
at-will
doctrine
are
very
narrow
and
limited.
J
It's
only
the
ones
that
the
courts,
the
court
has
expressly
acknowledged,
and
so,
if
sb
107
becomes
law,
it
will
apply
to
those
that
the
court
has
recognized,
but
it
also
has
the
flexibility
to
show
that
in
the
future
the
court
may
recognize
others
and
those
would
be
covered
by
sb
107
as
well,
and
that's
why
we
use
the
term.
J
H
A
All
right,
I
see
a
few
other
questions.
Senator
hansen
go
ahead.
D
Thanks
jericho,
just
a
quick
question
with
this
new
law:
if
an
employee
who's,
an
employer
and
the
case
is
dismissed
by
the
district
court
under
the
new
law,
would
they
be
able
to
then
file
any
other
virtual,
identical
claim
against
the
employer?
There's
some
verbiage
in
here.
It
seems
to
indicate
that
I
was
kind
of
wondering.
D
I
doubt
that's
the
intent.
We
just
want
to
make
sure
we
get
on
the
record,
what
the
whether
or
not
you
get
one
shot
at
the
district
court
level
and
and
you
don't
get
to
keep
recycling
the
whole
process.
J
Senator
hansen
to
you
through
the
through
the
chair,
I
I
you
you're
breaking
up
on
me
there
a
little
bit,
but
if
I
understand
the
question
you
were
asking:
if,
if
somebody
brought
a
claim
and
it
was
dismissed
by
the
district
court,
would
they
be
able
to
refile
the
claim
it
sort
of
depends
on
how
the
district
court
addressed
that
if
they
dismissed
the
case
without
prejudice,
then
a
person
could
refile
a
claim.
J
So,
for
example,
if
in
their
pleading
they
didn't
specify
things,
they
didn't
didn't
cover
all
of
their
bases,
all
the
things
they
have
to
be
included
to
state
a
valid
claim.
The
court
dismisses
that
without
prejudice,
they
would
be
able
to
refile
again
as
long
as
they're
within
the
statute
of
limitations.
J
No,
the
the
the
the
law
would
this
statute
would
not
affect
that
law
at
all.
It
doesn't
it.
There
is
a
finite
period
which
these
you
know.
Claims
are
valid.
J
But
if
it's
just
a
dismissal
without
prejudice
that
the
case
is
actually
closed
out
at
that
point,
but
you
could
refile
it
if
you,
if
you
did
still
have
time
to
do
so,
I
I
hope
I've
answered
your
question.
A
D
G
Thank
you,
chair
building
off
of
what
senator
hansen
said.
It
does
create
a
situation
where
currently
under
current
law,
they
wouldn't
have
the
ability
to
bring
up
a
discussion,
and
so
by
changing
this
law,
I'm
a
little
concerned
because,
again
currently
right
now,
you
have
a
certain
time
frame
under
state
and
federal
law
that
you
know
you
generally
keep
your
records
for.
So
what
will
happen
in
these
type
of
employment
termination
cases
when
we
adjust
this
time
frame?
G
What
happens
to
the
employer
if
they
don't
keep
those
documents
for
that
extended
for
this
new
extended
period
of
time,
which
is
somewhat
unlimited
because
again
we're
tolling
it
for
that
period
and
you
get
into
a
lawsuit?
Does
this
get
into
the
he
said?
I
said
she
said
type
situation
or
how
does
that
work.
J
Senator
to
you
through
the
chair,
I
recognize
the
the
concern,
but
in
these
particular
circumstances,
where
somebody
has
brought
a
charge
related
to
the
termination
of
their
employment
or
related
to
things
that
took
place
in
their
employment.
J
The
administrative
agency
is
going
to
have
given
notice
to
the
employer
that
the
charge
is
pending,
probably
asked
for
the
employer
to
provide
documents
or
witness
statements
or
information
to
respond
to
that
administrative
charge.
So
the
employer
is
going
to
be
fully
aware
of
that
and
they're
going
to
have
taken
steps
to
preserve
the
evidence.
J
In
the
in
the
normal
course
of
things,
because
they're
going
to
have
been
given
notice
of
the
administrative
agency
charge
or
complaint,
so
I
I
think
that
your
concern
is
ameliorated,
because
it's
not
as
if
the
employer
would
have
no
idea
that
this
would
be
coming
at
them.
Out
of
the
blue
they're,
going
to
have
been
given
notice
of
this
long
before
the
the
full
two
years
have
gone
by
even.
G
G
If
you
get
into
any
argument
with
anyone
to
keep
all
information
about
that
employee
forever,
but
in
the
same
respect
you
know
they
may
not
have
known
it
was
anything
to
do
with
an
employee
termination
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
several
years
down
the
line.
It
is
so
I
I
do
think
that
my
concerns
aren't
necessarily
motivated
because
of
that.
But
I
appreciate
your
answer
and
thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Absolutely
all
right
now
that
we
have
answered
questions.
Is
there
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
so
moved?
I
have
a
motion
from
senator
harris
to
amend
him
do
pass.
Do
I
have
a
second.
E
A
I'm
a
yes
so
with
that
the
motion
carries
and
we
have
voted
to,
amend
and
do
pass
sb107.
I
will
sign
a
floor
statement
to
the
sponsor
senator
orrinshaw,
and
that
brings
us
up
to
speed
with
all
of
our
housekeeping
or
business
other
than
bill
hearings
for
today,
and
we
have
two
bill
hearings.
I
do
want
to
let
everybody
here
and
everybody
who's
listening
in
understand
that
it
is
about
120.
A
Now
we
I
will
keep
track
of
the
time
to
try
to
allow
for
everybody
to
have
their
voices
heard
on
these
bills
and
to
allow
the
committee
ample
time
to
ask
questions.
To
that
extent,
you
may
also
provide
written
comments
or
written
testimony
to
the
senate
judiciary.
We
read
all
of
those
very
thoroughly
and
appreciate
your
participation
in
that
way.
A
I'm
not
going
to
set
time
limits
right
now,
I'm
going
to
like,
I
said,
keep
an
eye
on
the
clock
and
keep
you
guys
informed
of
how
we're
doing
on
time,
because
we
do
want
to
make
sure
that
we
give
these
bills
thorough
hearings
and
answer
all
of
our
questions
and
hear
from
everybody
who
has
taken
the
time
out
of
their
day
to
call
in
and
testify.
But
we
also
have
other
places
that
we
have
to
be
so
with
that.
K
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
scheible
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
dallas
harris.
I
represent
senate
district
11,
which
is
in
the
southwest
part
of
clark
county.
I
will
do
my
best
to
be
cognizant
of
time,
but
also
thorough.
K
Did
I
do
it
successfully
cool
great
all
right,
let's
go
so
this
bill
essentially,
is
about
modernizing
our
use
of
force
policies.
I'm
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
why
we
might
want
to
do
that
key
use
of
force
policies,
level
of
force
determinants
some
changes
that
I
have,
and
everyone
should
have
an
amendment
in
front
of
them,
reporting,
abuse
of
force
and
just
a
quick
summary
on
the
back
end.
K
So,
while
metro
has,
you
know,
instituted
some
great
use
of
force
reforms,
it's
in
direct
response
to
use
of
force
incidents,
officer-involved
shootings
and
death
from
officer-involved
shootings,
las
vegas
reported
a
26
percent
increase
since
2017
and
18
increase.
Last
year
alone.
K
K
Use
of
force
is
also
a
racial
justice
issue.
Reno
is
the
deadliest
city
for
black
men
at
the
hands
of
police
in
the
united
states,
and
washoe
county
as
a
whole
is
equally
as
high.
Unfortunately,
as
you
can
see,
on
the
chart,
nevada
has
two
entities
in
the
top
seven
cities,
as
las
vegas
also
kills.
Black
men
in
police
custody
at
rates
higher
than
they
would
otherwise
be
killed.
K
Police
use
of
force
should
never
be
higher
than
the
murder
rate.
We
should
expect
our
peace
officers
to
preserve
and
protect,
and,
to
do
so,
we
must
modernize
our
approach
to
use
of
force
to
understand
the
issues
report.
The
data
provide
alternative
techniques,
train
officers
and
create
a
culture
where
use
of
force
is
the
absolute
last
result,
and
while
cities
are
most
often
under
fire,
the
research
actually
shows
that
nationally
more
people
are
killed
by
police
in
the
suburbs.
K
K
Two,
the
public
lacks
trust
in
the
people
who
are
sworn
to
protect
it.
And
finally,
there
is
control.
The
point
of
a
police
instruction
is
for
an
officer
to
get
their
situation
under
control
that
the
perception
that
officers
will
immediately
resort
to
first
force
adds
additional
attention
to
situations
and
puts
passerby
witnesses
and
others
on
edge.
K
There's
a
ban
on
shooting
into
moving
vehicles
requiring
use
of
force
continuum
be
established
and
continually
reinforced
in
training,
as
well
as
comprehensive
reporting.
Some
nevada
police
departments
have
embraced
police
reform,
but
it's
imperative
that
all
agencies
are
enacting
the
appropriate
measures
to
keep
nevadans
and
officers
safe.
K
The
first
step
is
to
ensure
that
all
officers
in
nevada
assess
a
situation
before
resorting
to
a
higher
level
of
force.
Las
vegas
metro
police
department
has
identified
each
force
option
with
the
level
of
control,
with
increasing
escalation,
responses,
specific
tactic
and
weapons
associated
with
the
level.
K
K
K
Interestingly,
most
americans
believe
that
this
is
one
of
their
rights
that
a
police
officer
must
give
you
a
warning
before
shooting.
However,
it's
neither
a
right
nor
consistent
policy
across
law
enforcement
agencies
in
nevada,
426
cities
in
the
u.s
require
warning
before
shooting
and
so
should
nevada.
K
Section
2
paragraphs,
b1
and
2.
in
terms
of
use
of
force,
the
statutes
have
been
amended
to
include
the
level
of
force
determinants
here.
First
officers
may
only
use
a
level
of
force,
that's
reasonable,
under
the
circumstances
to
bring
an
incident
or
person
under
control
and
safely
accomplish
a
lawful
purpose.
K
K
There's
no
viable
reason
to
use
the
chair
as
it
constricts
blood
flow
and
can
cause
severe
injury
and
death.
However,
they
are
currently
used
in
our
in
our
systems
in
juvenile
settings
in
mental
health
settings,
and
so
what
we've
done
is
put
some
reasonable
restrictions
around
their
use.
K
Following
limitations
have
been
added
to
the
use
of
restraint
chairs,
they
should
only
be
used
to
restrain
an
individual
that
demonstrates
obstructive,
assaulted
or
life-threatening
resistance.
A
supervisor
must
authorize
their
use.
A
person
placed
in
a
restraint
chair
must
remain
under
direct
visual
observation
until
screened
by
medical
staff
and
every
15
minutes.
After
that,
medical
staff
must
be
notified
when
a
restraint
chair
will
be
used.
K
Oh
sorry,
about
that
medical
staff
should
be
notified
when
a
restraint
chair
will
be
used
and
should
conduct
an
initial
conduct.
Initial
assessment
of
the
persons
before
its
use,
the
person
should
be
assessed
frequently
not
to
exceed
30
minutes
by
supervisor
to
evaluate
that
person's
level
of
resistance
and
see
if
they
can
be
removed
from
the
chair.
K
Restraint
chairs
will
not
be
used
to
restrain
pregnant
persons
physically,
a
person
should
not
be
restrained
for
longer
than
two
hours
with
additional
approval
from
the
supervisor
and
restraint.
Chair
should
not
be
used
to
threaten
inmates
who
are
not
otherwise
demonstrating
obstructive,
assaultive
or
life-threatening
resistance.
K
K
Peaceful
demonstration
is
the
core
tenant
of
our
democracy.
Police
officers
should
not
assume
that
an
assembled
group
is
intended
to
do
anything
more
than
voice
their
dissent
against
injustices
that
they
face.
However,
police
response
to
demonstrations
have
often
resulted
in
medical
injury
to
groups
who
have
assembled
peacefully.
K
K
K
This
bill
restricts
the
use
of
chemical
agents
to
an
instance
where
an
unlawful
assembly
has
been
declared,
and
the
discharge
should
follow
specific
orders
to
disperse
that
have
been
heard
and
understood
by
the
assembled
group.
This
may
mean
having
interpreters
or
other
resources
available,
to
translate
information
into
the
language
of
the
group.
K
K
None
of
nevada's
law
enforcement
agencies
comply
with
the
use
of
force
policy
that
requires
comprehensive
reporting.
We
don't
have
the
ability
currently
to
put
these
into
a
nationwide.
K
I'm
sorry,
a
statewide
reporting
database
reporting
across
jurisdictions
is
currently
fragmented
and
inconsistent
washoe
county
reports
race,
but
doesn't
separate
the
types
of
use
of
force
incidents,
metro
reports,
incidents,
but
does
not
have
any
demographics
about
those
involved.
Henderson
departments
report
substantial
external
complaints,
substantiated
external
complaints
of
force.
K
All
law
enforcement
agencies
need
to
collect
data
consistent
with
the
national
use
of
force
data
collection
standards
from
the
fbi
in
section
three.
This
bill
requires
that
those
departments
participating
in
the
dps
uniform
reporting
system
report
that
information
for
analysis
to
dps,
and
we
ask
the
attorney
general
to
take
a
look
at
that
and
make
recommendations
to
us
the
legislature
to
see
how
we
can
address
any
issues
if
we
see
so.
K
In
summary,
nevada
has
the
opportunity
to
lead
on
police
reform.
Some
cities
have
already
started,
but
it's
imperative
that
we
strengthen
our
use
of
force.
Policies
to
reduce
incidents
of
police
violence,
address
issues
of
other
types
of
violence.
Help
officers
feel
prepared
to
use
other
alternatives
to
deadly
force
and
use
data
to
improve
the
systems
of
justice.
K
Sb12
is
our
path
to
success,
for
making
nevada
a
safer
place
to
live,
work
and
thrive,
and
with
your
indulgence,
madam
chair
I'd
now
like
to
introduce
the
following
speakers
to
provide
additional
expert
testimony
on
use
of
force
policies,
as
described
in
212.
I
have
with
us
deray
mckesson,
co-founder
of
campaign
zero
sam
singh
way.
I
hope
I'm
saying
that
right
and
katie
ryan.
L
Hello,
it
is
an
honor
to
be
here
and
we
are
campaign
zero.
We
have
led
on
this
work
across
the
country,
helping
cities
and
states
think
about
use
of
force
policies
differently.
We
started
this
in
2015,
but
the
latest
big
push
was
around
a
campaign
called
eight
can't
wait
at
the
beginning
in
june
of
last
year,
and
since
then
this
is
one
of
the
biggest
changes
in
police
policy
in
american
history.
L
Katie
will
talk
in
a
minute
about
the
scope
and
sam
will
help
us
understand
the
research
behind
it
and
why
this
actually
matters,
but
lexington
said
this
is
an
opportunity
to
actually
do
something
that
will
save
people's
lives.
It
is
important
that
at
the
state
level
that
these
these
changes
happen
so
that
it's
not
only
the
major
departments,
because
what
we
find
across
the
country
is
that
most
of
the
killings
by
police
happen
actually
in
suburban
communities.
L
F
Great,
so
someone
could
help
me
on
view,
my
video,
that
would
be
great.
It
says
I
can't
okay
cool.
Thank
you,
hello,
everyone.
So
my
name
is
sam
sanyongwe,
as
dre
said
we're
with
campaign
zero.
I
just
wanted
to
provide
an
overview
of
some
of
the
data
around
why
these
types
of
policy
restrictions
can
make
a
difference.
So
you
know
there.
It
has
been
a
host
of
conversation
over
the
past
six
or
seven
years
about
police
violence
in
this
country
and
how
it
particularly
impacts
black
and
brown
communities.
F
Policies
places
that,
for
example,
banned
officers
from
shooting
at
moving
vehicles,
banned
things
like
chokeholds
and
strangleholds
required
officers
to
use
de-escalation
and
available
alternatives
to
deadly
force
and
included
comprehensive
reporting
around
use
of
force
as
well
that
those
places
had
significantly
fewer
killings
by
police,
and
not
only
that,
but
they
were
also
safer
for
officers
as
well,
because
officers
weren't
sort
of
rushing
into
situations
using
force
when
they
could
have
created
time
and
space
and
use
de-escalation
to
prevent
that
sort
of
adversarial
encounter
in
the
first
place.
F
F
But
we
know
that
this
is
something
that
is
particularly
important
for
a
state
like
nevada,
where
you
have
147
people
who
have
been
killed
by
the
police
from
2013
through
2020.
The
state
has
the
fifth
highest
rate
of
fatal
police
violence
in
the
united
states
among
the
50
states
and
in
the
context
of
those
147
incidents.
F
Only
one
offer
only
one
case
results
noxus
being
charged
with
a
crime,
and
those
charges
were
later
dropped,
so
very
little
accountability
from
the
criminal
justice
system
in
terms
of
stepping
in
and
holding
officers
accountable,
which
means
we
need
to
be
thinking
about.
Preventative
measures
like
to
prevent
these
incidents
from
happening
in
the
first
place.
F
Use
of
force
policy
is
one
of
those
areas
that
has
the
strongest
evidence
of
effectiveness
and
the
most
research
that
has
been
done
over
the
years,
validating
that
more
more
restrictions
in
this
domain
can
actually
save
lives.
M
Hello,
everyone,
if
someone
could
also
enable
my
video,
perfect
great
hello,
everyone
again,
katie
ryan
from
campaign,
zero,
a
lot
of
gratitude
for
the
invitation
to
speak
today.
What
I
would
like
to
do
before
sort
of
sharing
the
national
landscape
is
to
call
out
some
of
the
specifics
of
representative
harris's
bill
to
illuminate
the
importance
of
why
and
how
exactly
you
all
can,
as
a
state
employ
more
restrictive
use
of
force,
policies
to
stop
and
reduce
police
violence
against
communities.
The
first
is
the
component
around
requiring
de-escalation
right.
M
We
often
hear
from
police
departments
throughout
the
country
that
officers
are
trained
in
de-escalation
strategies
and
tactics
and
learn
how
to
use
lesser
means
of
force
before
resorting
to
deadly
force.
However,
the
expectation
to
use
or
implement
that
training
isn't
always
codified
into
policy,
and
what
we
are
asking
the
state
of
nevada
to
do
is
to
take
de-escalation
training
and
make
sure
that
it
is
an
expectation
that
officers
use
that
training,
in
fact,
when
they
are
engaging
with
the
public.
M
Similarly,
making
sure
that
officers
when
feasible
and
given
the
totality
of
the
circumstances,
give
individuals
an
opportunity
to
comply
with
commands
or
verbal
directions
by
also
warning
that
the
use
of
force
is
a
possibility,
should
they
not
comply
and
to
make
sure
that
officers
are
required
to
adhere
to
a
use
of
force
continuum
that
we
are
outlining
various
types
of
circumstances
that
officers
might
encounter
outlining
what
a
proportional
response
would
be
and
then
making
sure
that
there
are
restrictions
on
weapon
use
again,
so
that
officers
are
not
putting
individuals
or
themselves
in
volatile
unnecessarily
volatile
situations
by
escalating
a
situation
too
quickly.
K
Thank
you
so
much
and
chair
schaible
again
with
your
indulgence
I
before
I
take
questions,
I
just
want
to
make
one
more
comment.
This
bill
is
still
a
work
in
progress.
K
I
am
still
having
plenty
of
discussions
to
make
sure
that
we
get
it
to
a
point
where
everyone
feels
that
we're
serving
the
community
and-
and
I
have
some
concerns
still
to
address,
but
I
wanted
to
put
that
on
the
record
and
I
would
invite
the
eight
can't
wait
team
to
to
hang
on
and
maybe
assist
in
answering
some
of
these
questions.
If
they'd
like
thank
you,
chair,
scheible,.
A
Thank
you
senator
harris
and
thank
you
to
the
eight
can't
wait
and
campaign
zero
folks
who
have
joined
us
today
to
help
present
the
bill
and
now
you're
gonna
get
some
great
questions
from
the
members
of
our
committee.
They
never
disappoint.
So,
let's
start
with
senator
hansen.
D
Thanks
chair
scheible,
first
of
all,
I
gotta
say
that
this
was
an
incredibly
one-sided
loaded
presentation
and
the
fact
that
our
law
enforcement
committee
is
gonna
be
limited
to
two
minutes
to
rebut
some
of
these
charges,
I
think,
is
outrageous.
Okay,
so
you
know
I've
been
on
this
committee
for
six
terms
now
and
that
presentation
and
some
of
the
accusations
that
were
made
absolutely
should
give
a
minimum
of
equal
time
to
the
nevada
law
enforcement
community
to
rebut.
D
My
question,
though,
is
three
people
presented
to
this
committee
as
experts
d
ray
mckesson,
sam
singh
yang
we
and
katie
ryan.
Would
you
all
three
tell
me
what
you're?
Why
are
you
experts
in
these
fields?
What's
your
are
you?
Are
you
guys
a
professional
criminologist,
or
I
mean
what
what's
your
cr?
Where
are
your
credentials?
K
Cher
scheibel,
if
I,
if
I
may,
just
very
quickly
before
they
jump
in
there
sandra
hanson,
I
I
I'm
sorry
that
the
presentation
offended
you
so
much.
I
would
like
to
let
you
know:
I'm
not
offended
okay.
Well,
I
wanted.
D
Really
and-
and
they
agree
with
the
statistics-
you
see
that
reno
nevada
is
the
highest
I'd
like
to
know
the
actual
numbers
of
black
people
killed
by
the
police
in
reno
nevada,
from
2013
to
2020,
because
I
live
in
that
community
and
I
know
when
they
have
had
those
sorts
of
killings,
that
the
naacp
and
all
sorts
of
organizations
are
brought
in
to
verify
whether
or
not
the
cops
actually
use
some
sort
of
racial
injustice
in
the
motivations
in
the
shootings.
As
I
recall,
I
don't,
there
hasn't
been
even
a
single
case.
D
L
So
so
we're
happy
to
happy
to
talk
and
it's
great
to
be
here
so
campaign
zero.
I
was
one
of
the
original
organizers
in
ferguson
in
2014
and
once
the
protests
ended,
we
were
trying
to
figure
out
what
are
the
structural
things.
So
we
actually
manage
the
most
confidence
of
database
of
police
violence
in
the
united
states.
There
are
three
databases
of
police
violence.
Remember.
The
federal
government
is
not
one
of
the
three,
because
only
40
percent
of
american
police
departments
report
to
the
federal
government.
L
The
federal
government
does
not
release
disaggregated
data
at
the
department
level
or
the
the
actual
action
type
level.
So
the
three
databases
of
the
washington
post,
fatal
encounters
and
ours
mapping
police
violence.
The
washington
post
only
codes
on
duty
killings
that
include
a
gun.
So
that
means
that
george
floyd's,
not
in
a
database
because
he
was
not
killed
the
gun,
for
instance,
and
they
also
code
you
as
armed.
If
you
had
anything
in
your
hand
at
the
time
of
death,
so
tamir
rice
would
be
coded
as
armed
in
their
database.
L
If
you
remember
bathroom,
gene
bottom
was
killed
by
a
police
officer
when
he
was
on
his
couch
in
the
middle
of
the
night
amber
geiger.
She
was
off
duty
when
she
killed
him,
so
she
is,
he
is
not
in
the
database
of
the
washington
post,
but
encounters
is
the
other
big
database
fade
on
counters
counts.
Anybody
who
was
killed
in
the
presence
of
police,
so
that
includes
things
like
they
don't
like
death
by
suicide.
Our
database
mapping
police
violence
is
a
sighted
database
of
police.
L
Violence
in
the
united
states
in
is
the
only
database
that
is
all
on
duty
off
duty
all
weapons
and
has
been
used
in
a
range
of
studies
that
sam
can
talk
about.
So
we
manage
that.
We
also
manage
the
only
database.
The
only
public
database
and
the
only
database
exists
at
all
abuse
of
forced
policies
in
the
united
states.
L
So
we
are
the
leading
experts
around
use
of
force.
It's
the
only
database,
the
only
analysis
of
use,
force,
policies
that
has
ever
existed.
We
manage
it.
We
also
manage
the
only
database
of
police
union
contracts
in
the
united
states
and
the
21
states
that
have
state
level
legislation
around
policing.
D
Great
well
deray.
I
also
want
to
thank
you
for
that,
but
that
still
isn't,
because
you
manage
a
database,
I'm
not
sure
that
raises
you
to
elect
an
expert
on
on
criminal
criminality
in
the
united
states.
You
also
mentioned
your
background
started
in
ferguson.
Missouri,
isn't
true
that
eric
holder,
who
was
the
attorney
general
united
states
at
that
time,
actually,
exonerated
the
police
in
that
situation.
L
So
you
know,
exonerated
would
not
be
the
legal
term
that
I
would
use,
but
the
doj
did
not
intervene
in
that
case
in
in
the
way
that
the
protesters
would
have
won
it.
I
can
tell
you
my
personal
background,
so
I
used
to
be
at
the
age
of
30,
the
youngest
chief
of
the
office
of
human
capital
in
the
history
of
the
city
of
baltimore
school
system.
I
taught
I've
done
a
whole
range
of
things
professionally.
I
now
work
on
police
violence,
but
but
happy
to
provide
the
the
length
of
my
resume.
L
Knowing
the
work
around
structural
change
and
again,
I
will
push
back
on
the
idea
that
the
only
people
have
a
license
to
say
about
how
officers
can
use
force
are
the
police.
I
don't
believe
that
that's
true,
and
I
don't
believe
that
it's
true
that
the
academy
is
the
only
people
who
can
make
decisions
or
provide
input
about
how
force
is
used
in
community.
D
I
actually
chaired
this
committee
at
one
time,
so
this
is
not
a
new
issue
to
me
as
well,
so
I
I
totally
support
the
idea
of
reducing
any
kind
of
violence
not
only
by
the
police
but
by
the
people
that
often
assault
the
police.
D
So
you
know
it's
a
two-way
street
in
many
cases,
so
I
I
actually
support
the
concept
behind
this
to
reduce
the
and
minimize
the
violence,
but
I
think
some
of
the
things
that
were
said,
especially
with
the
limited
opportunities
that
the
police
departments
would
have
to
basically
protect
their
own
integrity
and
and
challenge
some
of
these
statements.
I
mean
I'm
sorry,
I
don't
think
the
reno
police
department
is
the
most
racially
motivated
police
department
in
the
united
states.
Based
on
on
that,
in
my
opinion,
highly
one-sided
slide.
D
L
K
And
that
would
actually
be
up
to
the
chair,
chair,
scheible.
A
Absolutely
and
yeah
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to.
I
do
want
to
thank
all
of
you
guys
again
for
for
being
here
and
for
presenting
to
our
committee,
and
I
will
leave
it
up
to
you
guys.
A
Senator
harris
asked
me
first
as
the
chair
of
the
committee,
if
I
would
allow
the
three
of
you
to
speak
as
experts
on
this
topic,
and
I
did
approve
your
presence
here
as
experts
on
this
topic
being
familiar
with
campaign,
zero's
work
and
being
familiar
with
eight
can't
wait
and
the
three
of
you
individually
and
all
of
the
work
that
you
have
done
in
this
field.
A
I
am
you
know,
I'm
actually
very
honored
that
you
would
take
the
time
to
come
to
our
little
nevada
judiciary
committee
and
help
us
understand
the
landscape
in
our
own
state.
That
being
said,
if
you
do
want
to
expand
on
those
qualifications,
we
would
love
to
hear
from
you
and
it
sounds
like
we
could
probably
focus
in
on
senator
hansen's
main
concern,
which
has
to
do
with
the
data
from
reno
and
if
you
are
able
to
and
want
to
respond
to,
that
specifically
is
not.
A
I
will
preface
this
with
this
not
necessarily
related
to
the
bill,
so
I'm
not
going
to
require
you
guys
to
expand
on
that
in
committee
if
you'd
rather
follow
up
offline,
but
I'm
also
confident
that
you
have
the
information
at
the
ready.
So
if
you
would
like
to
address
it
here
and
now,
please
go
ahead.
F
So
you
know,
another
thing
I'll
say
is,
first
of
all,
as
derek
said,
all
of
our
data
is
public.
Is
online
people
were
killed?
Oh
sorry,
yes,
samuel,
simiongway,
co-founder
of
campaign
zero.
So
so,
as
I
said,
there
were
147
people
killed
by
police
in
nevada
during
the
time
for
2013
through
2020
we've,
provided,
I
believe,
a
individualized
list
of
all
of
those
cases,
as
well
as
the
case
outcomes.
F
What
we
have
found
in
looking
at
the
data
is
that
there
are
these
patterns
not
only
in
nevada
but
all
across
the
country
where
police
violence
is
disproportionately
impacting
black
and
brown
communities,
where
some
cities
have
higher
rates
of
police
violence
than
others,
and
in
particular
cities
where
there
are
rates
that
really
are
sort
of
outliers.
F
What
we
have
been
able
to
do
in
disaggregating
that
data
is
point
to
particular
places
that
have
elevated
rates
of
police
violence
within
the
state
and
be
happy
to
expound
even
more
in
depth,
because
one
of
the
things
that's
important
when
we
talk
about
this
is
we're
working
with
the
data
that
we're
able
to
collect
an
environment
where
the
federal
government
is
not
collecting
the
data
which
actually
points
to
the
importance
of
this
bill.
So
we're
talking
about
these
147
incidents
across
the
state,
from
2013
to
2020,
that
includes
fatal
police
violence.
Only.
F
We
don't
have
good
data
on
non-fatal
police
use
of
force,
which
often
occurs
much
more
frequently,
and
I
think
that
is
part
of
why
these
this
legislation,
sb
212,
is
so
important
to
actually
require
departments
to
provide
broader
data
on
not
only
fatal
use
of
force
where
we
already
know
that
there
are
particular
cities
like
reno
that
have
elevated
rates,
particularly
against
black
people,
but
also
so
we
could
understand
the
dynamics
with
regards
to
non-fatal
force
as
well.
So
I
think
that
this
is
you
know
what
the
data
can
tell
us.
F
Even
the
limited
data
we're
able
to
obtain,
despite
all
of
the
limitations,
is
that
number
one
nevada
has
the
fifth
highest
rate
in
the
united
states
of
killings
by
police,
that
those
killings
by
police
are
concentrated
in
particular
cities
and
by
particular
agencies.
That
should
get
a
second
look
by
the
state
and
by
city
legislators
and
that
there's
a
whole
host
of
additional
data
that
we
don't
have
access
to,
that.
We
wish
we
had
access
to
that
could
provide
us
greater
context
in
terms
of
where
interventions
are
needed.
D
L
A
All
right,
we
will
move
next
to
senator
pickard.
H
Thank
you
church.
I
will,
I
will
say,
I'm
impressed.
I
I
think
I
wish
I
had
a
small
degree
of
the
ability
that
I
see
from
mr
singh
yangwei
and
mr
mckesson
in
terms
of
their
ability
to
articulate
and
communicate.
H
H
K
And
if
I
can
very
quickly
cherish,
I
will
to
senator
pickard
through
you.
If
you
could
state
your
name
for
the
record.
This
is
senator
harris,
senator
pickard.
I
I
want
you
all
to.
I
want
everyone
to
keep
in
mind
that
this
is
not
an
accusatory
bill.
This
is
a
bill
about
taking
the
best
practices
and
putting
them
into
statute
to
ensure
that
it
is
uniform
across
the
state.
K
So
this
is
not
to
say,
hey
you
reno
you're,
a
bad
guy
and
we're
coming
after
you.
This
is
to
say
we
have
learned
a
lot
over
the
course
of
40
years
about
what
type
of
techniques
work
and
what
the
best
policies
are.
Let's
go
ahead
and
codify
them
and
make
sure
they're
uniform
across
the
state,
and
so
you
know
I
I
don't
know
if
my
colleagues
from
campaign
zero
have
the
exact
numbers,
but
I
want
you
to
understand
that
this
is
not
about
officer
x,
who
we
know
didn't
use
de-escalation
techniques.
K
L
Yeah,
so
I
just
briefly
say
that
you
know
police
departments
actually
don't
they
do
not
record
de-escalation
attempts.
That's
not
like
a
that's,
not
a
thing
that
police
departments
record,
so
what
the
what
the
bill
would
do
would
actually
require
the
escalation
so
around
the
country.
What
we
see
is
a
police
department
so
say:
well,
we
train
on
de-escalation
right,
which
is
true.
There
are
very
few
police
departments
across
the
country
that
do
not
train
on
de-escalation.
L
F
And
to
the
point
of
the
data
around,
how
often
officers
are
de-escalating
is
deray
said
there
are
very
few
police
departments
that
even
report
de-escalation
as
a
reportable
type
of
sort
of
force
alternative-
you
know,
chula
vista
police
department
in
california,
is
one
of
the
ones
that
does
so,
if
you're
interested
in
seeing
how
that
works,
definitely
look
at
look
at
them.
F
So
we're
actually
able
to
see
like
did
the
police
attempt
to
use
a
taser
before
they
escalated
to
shooting.
Did
the
police
attempt
to
use
other
forms
of
physical
force
before
they
escalated
to
shooting
what
we
can
say
when
we
look
at
that
data?
Again,
there
are
a
few
years
of
data
now
2016,
17
and
18.
Now
and
in
that
database,
more
than
80
percent
of
all
police
shootings
in
the
state,
the
police
reported
using
no
other
type
of
force
other
than
deadly
force.
F
So
they
did
not
attempt
to
use
less
lethal
force
before
using
deadly
force
in
at
least
80
percent
of
shootings,
there's
another
10
or
so
in
which
there
are
issues
with
the
order
in
which
they
report
the
shooting.
So
we've
actually
had
to
do
work
to
figure
out
using
the
police
statements,
media
reports
and
other
information
where
they
didn't
report
in
order
what
the
order
was
and
which
they
used
it
in
and
in
some
of
those
cases
as
well.
They
also
they
may
have
used
another
form
of
force
after
they
used
deadly
force.
F
So,
between
80
and
85
percent
of
cases
in
california
involve
an
officer
that
shot
somebody
without
using
a
lesser
means
of
force.
First,
that
may
change
now
because
of
state
legislation
that
restricted
their
deadly
force
standard
that
passed
recently.
H
Right-
and
I
appreciate
that
and
I
apologize,
I
should
have
been
clear
that
I
was
looking
for
data
for
nevada.
You
know
the
the
policing
all
over
the
country
is
different
in
every
single
jurisdiction,
although
there
are
obviously
commonalities,
but
I
was
I'm
interested
in
the
nevada
data
because
the
the
presumably
that
the
statute
is
is
applied
only
in
nevada.
H
So
I'm
trying
to
make
sure
I
understand
how
this
is
changing
the
status
quo.
You
know
there
were
suggestions
in
the
presentation
that
that
I
I
thought
we
were
saying
that
police
aren't
using
de-escalation
we're
using
these
restraint
chairs.
H
I
mean
this
is
the
first
time
I've
ever
heard
that
the
restraint
chairs
were
killing
people,
not
to
say
they're,
not
I
just
haven't
heard
about
it,
but
there
are
a
number
of
things
in
here
that
are
shallow
lots,
and
you
know
I
can
envision
instances
where
restraint
would
be
necessary
to
protect
everyone
around
them
and
potentially
the
individual.
H
I'm
appreciative
that
the
amendment
which
I
didn't
have
a
chance
to
review
before
it
was
given
to
me
right
before
the
hearing
addresses
some
of
that,
but
I'm
just
I'm
trying
to
get
to
the
data
and
trying
to
figure
out
what
is
the
actual
status
quo
today.
What
are
we
trying
to
fix?
H
I
I
kind
of
reject
the
idea
that
we're
we
just
want
to
put
everything
all
good
practices
into
statute,
because
that's
the
purpose
of
regulation-
and
you
know
I
reject
the
idea
that
if
you
don't-
even
if
you
train
for
it
well,
it
doesn't
necessarily
apply
because
that's
what
the
standard
that
the
officers
are
held
to
in
any
kind
of
litigation.
L
Say
your
name
ray
mckesson,
so
so
when
officers
break
policy
for
instance,
that
is
a
you
can
be
disciplined
for
that.
That's
all
that's
a
process,
but
merely
that
officers
are
trained
on
it
in
very
few
places.
Is
that
actually
something
that
leads
to
a
discipline
or
as
a
part
of
a
disciplined
matrix
or
is
used
in
any
of
those
processes,
so
that
just
you
know,
we've
seen
this
in
cities
far
and
wide.
There
are
some
cities
in
nevada,
yeah,
so.
B
L
Nevada,
there
are
police
departments
that
have
recently
after
june,
we
worked
with
them
and
they
changed
it
to
require
de-escalation.
That
is
a
good
thing.
That
is
not
the
law,
so
they
could
change
it
tomorrow,
back
to
not
require
the
escalation
and
could
just
say
they
train
on
de-escalation.
The
law
will
prevent
people
from
going
back
and
forth.
But
again
it
is
not
my
understanding
in
nevada
that
simply
being
trained
on
it
is
the
same
thing
as
it
being
an
actual
policy,
an
enforceable
rule.
K
And
sheriff
scheibel,
if
I
may,
you
know
senator
pickard,
as
you
know,
you
know
I
regulations
are
great.
I
am
a
fan
of
pushing
things
down
to
a
regulatory
body.
However,
there
doesn't
exist
one
for
police
departments
across
the
state,
and
so
this
is
not
an
it's.
You
know.
Regulations
apply
all
the
way
statewide.
K
What
we
have
are
policies
and
procedures
that
are
kind
of
police
department
specific.
So
you
know
we
don't
really
have
that
same
kind
of
ability
to
require
all
police
departments
to
do
something,
but
maybe
through
regulation.
K
And
I'll
also
just
also
just
say
very
quickly,
I
think
it's
really
important
that
the
committee
understand
this
bill
is
the
product
of
work
months
and
months
of
work
with
every
group
you
can
think
of
not
just
community
members
right,
but
las
vegas,
metro,
the
sheriff's
association
nevada,
police
union.
They
have
been
at
the
table
from
the
beginning,
so
you're,
looking
at
a
a
product
that
has
been
vetted
through
multiple
groups,
language
that
has
kind
of
evolved
over
time
to
get
where
we
are
today.
K
H
And
I
certainly
appreciate
that
this
does
look
like,
particularly
when
we
look
at
the
amendment.
It
looks
like
there's
been
a
lot
of
iterations
and
and
discussions
that
have
gone
into
it,
and
I
I
appreciate
that.
I'm
just
you
know-
and
I
wouldn't
be
surprised
if,
in
today's
political
environment,
police
officers
or
the
organizations
across
the
state
come
in
and
support
at
least
of
the
amended
version,
because
you
know
they're
kind
of
behind
the
eight
ball.
H
But
you
know
my
my
impulse,
my
initial
impulse,
particularly
after
the
presentation
it
may
not
have
been
as
strong
as
senator
harrison
or
senator
hansen's,
but
I
did
kind
of
react
a
little
bit
and
think
you
know
it.
It's
pretty
accusatory.
H
The
presentation
was
such
that
it
sounded
like
you
know.
You
know
police
officers,
I
mean
we're
stopping
short
of
a
defund
police
argument,
but
it
sounded
like
you
know.
These
are
our
bad
guys
and
for
pete's
sake,
these
guys
keep
us
safe
and
and
they're
the
ones
who
run
toward
the
the
danger
instead
of
away
from
it,
and
I
think
they
deserve
a
great
deal
of
respect
for
that.
And
so
what
I'm?
Trying
to
do
is
get
my
arms
around
what
are
the
differences
that
this
bill
is
going
to
fix
what
what's
happening?
H
That
needs
to
stop
that
this
bill
is
going
to
fix,
and
you
know
things
like
de-escalation,
I'm
quite
confident
that
police
officers
throughout
the
state
try
first
to
de-escalate
the
issue,
and
I
disagree
that
a
litigation
standard
would
not
or
a
litigation
would
not
look
at
the
standard
of
training
as
a
baseline
for
liability.
That's
that
that's
universal
in
litigation.
H
So
I
just
I'm
concerned
that
we're
basing
this
on
national
data
instead
of
nevada
data
without
understanding
the
context
and
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
understand
give
me
the
context.
What
are
what
is
this
bill?
Fixing
that
we're
not
doing.
A
I'm
going
to
jump
in
for
a
second
and
say
that
I
think
that
senator
picker's
question
to
senator
harris
and
and
the
rest
of
the
panel
is
what
does
this
bill
change
about
our
current
practices,
which
I
think
has
already
been
answered.
I
will
give
you
guys
another
opportunity
to
answer
it
and
then,
let's
move
on
because
I
see
that
pretty
much
every
member
of
the
committee
has
questions.
L
It
just
is
a
against
the
point
of
clarification.
Is
that
when
we
look
at
litigation
numbers
this
is
ray
mckesson
is
that
very
few
officers
are
ever
prosecuted
or
charged
around
force.
This
would
mostly
be
an
administrative
issue
and
it
would
be
administrative
issues
are
almost
always
because
of
a
policy.
So
if
the
policy
does
not
say
it
in
our
experience,
it
is
not
likely
that
there
will
be
any
discipline.
L
There
are
some
of
the
big
agencies
in
nevada
actually
in
the
past
year,
have
changed
their
policies,
which
is
a
very
good
thing
to
require
the
escalation
and
to
do
some
other
things,
because
they
also
understand
that
making
it
a
policy
actually
makes
this
a
hard
and
fast
rule
and
administrative
consequences
are
normally
the
only
consequences,
if
any,
that
officers
face
when
they
violate
something.
The
training
actually
is
not
enough.
So
around
litigation
very
few
officers
ever
through
the
litigation
process,
around
use
of
force.
E
Thank
you
chairman.
Thank
you,
senator
harris
for
bringing
the
bill.
My
question
for
either
ms
ryan
or
mr
mckesson
or
miss
mr
sinyongway
is
in
other
states
that
have
amended
their
state
statutes
on
use
of
force
in
a
similar
manner.
To
this
you
know
have:
has
there
been
less
violent
incidents
when
there's
contact
between
police
and
citizens?
E
Have
we
seen?
I
think
we
all
agree
whether
you
know,
regardless
of
our
party
or
our
feelings,
that
we'd
like
to
see.
You
know
whenever
there's
contact
between
police
and
our
citizens
that
there
not
be
violence,
and
I
just
wonder
if
there's
any
data
in
your
database
for
states
that
have
gone
and
adopted
reforms
similar
to
this,
that
there's
been
that
there's
been
the
outcome.
We've
hoped
for
that.
There's
been
less
violent
contacts.
F
Sam,
so
this
is
samsung
with
campaign
zero.
It's
a
great
question.
The
short
answer
is
not
at
the
state
level,
but
yes
at
the
local
level,
so
because
this
is
relatively
new
at
the
state
level,
as
dre
said,
we've
seen
over
a
dozen
states
adopt
more
restrictive
deadly
force
and
other
use
of
force
standards
in
the
past
year,
and
so
because
so
much
of
that
movement
has
happened
so
quickly.
F
We
don't
yet
have
the
sort
of
the
after
the
post
data
coming
in,
so
that
we
can
understand
the
exact
difference
in
use
of
force
over
that
time
period.
What
we
do
have
and
what
we
have
tracked
and
other
researchers
across
the
country
of
track
are
cities
that
have
implemented
more
restrictive
use
of
force
policies
and
the
impact
that
that
has
one
of
you
know.
We
we
mentioned
the
study
that
we
conducted
with
100
largest
cities
in
the
country.
F
There
are
additional
studies
that
have
been
conducted,
for
example,
most
recently
in
seattle,
looking
at
the
decline
in
use
of
force
following
the
adoption
of
a
more
restrictive
use
of
force
policy
and
a
set
of
other
accountability
measures
following
the
doj
intervention
and
consent
decree
there.
What
they
tracked
was
not
only
did
use
of
force
overall
decline,
but
officers
actually
were
safer
as
well
following
the
adoption
of
those
restrictive
use,
of
course,
standards.
Those
are
similar
standards
to
what
is
in
212,
requiring
the
escalation
alternatives
to
deadly
force.
F
F
I
mentioned
the
40
years
of
research
that
research
began
actually
in
the
70s,
with
a
criminologist
named
james
fife,
who
first
looked
at
the
nypd's
adoption
of
a
set
of
restrictive
use
of
force,
policies
that
banned
shooting
at
moving
vehicles
and
required
officers
to
use
alternatives
to
deadly
force
whenever
possible
and
tracked
a
substantial
decline
in
in
fatal
police
violence.
Following
the
adoption
of
those
policies,
since
then,
researchers
have
found
similar
effects
in
a
range
of
cities,
from
columbus
to
memphis,
to
philadelphia
in
philadelphia.
F
Researchers
actually
looked
at
the
what
happens
when
they
lift
a
restrictive
policy,
so
in
philadelphia
in
the
80s
they
adopted
a
more
restrictive
use
of
force
standard
for
a
few
years
under
one
police
chief
deadly
force
went
down
then
that
policy
was
repealed
and
deadly
force
shot
right
back
up
so
happy
to
provide
sort
of
the
the
overall
review
of
the
literature
on
this
area.
F
It
is
one
of
the
most
well
studied
policy
areas
within
the
broader
sort
of
police
reform
ecosystem
out
there
right
now
and
again
now
that
many
states
are
beginning
to
take
action,
we
will
have
better
data
on
the
state
level
very
soon.
E
G
Settlemeier,
we
are
always
spending
time
sure
we
always
get
into
discussion
about
who's
unmuting,
each
other,
I'm
used
to
I'm
muting,
my
own
butt,
not
having
the
chair
choose
when
I
can
speak
and
when
I
can't
so,
I
guess
we'll
have
to
continue
to
figure
that
out
to
the
presenters,
you
know
welcome
to
the
state
of
nevada.
G
I
appreciate
your
information
if
you
could
do
me
a
favor
and
send
me
or
the
whole
committee
if
the
chair
is
okay
with
it
any
specific
information
to
the
state
of
nevada
and
especially
anything,
you
might
have
that's
broken
down
by
county,
so
I
can
take
an
examination
of
the
counties
that
I
represent
since
I
do
not
represent
washoe
county,
which
is
the
reno
sparks
area,
or
do
I
represent
clark
county
in
that
respect?
I
represent
four
counties
that
are
not
in
that
contingent.
So
if
you
have
any
specific
information,
you
could
send
I'd.
G
Be
appreciative
to
look
at
that
information
to
the
sponsor
of
the
bill
I
was
going
to
ask
real
quick,
is:
is
this
so?
In
other
words,
this
is
just
stating
that
it
shouldn't
be
your
go-to
thing
right.
You
should
not
think
about
escalating,
or
you
know
in
that
respect.
This
is
not
the
go-to,
but
if
an
individual
is
in
fear
of
their
life,
they
have
the
right
to
automatically
go
to
that
correct.
K
Senator
settlemeier
to
you
well
cherish,
I
will
to
you,
wait
nope
senator
said
tomorrow
to
you
through
chair
scheible,
that's
it
you
know,
senocene.
I
think
everyone
has
to
remember.
We
all
have
the
right
to
protect
our
life
police
officer
or
not,
and
so,
if
someone's
using
deadly
force
against
you,
you
already
have
the
right
to
use
deadly
force,
and
that
applies
to
every
citizen
actually
walking
down
the
street
today.
This
bill
would
not
change
that.
G
K
Well,
senator
settlemyre
I'll
I'll
point
you
to
two
things
in
the
amendment,
one
in
in
section
two
subsection,
one
paragraph
a
if
it
is
possible
to
do
so
safely,
right,
we're
putting
that
constraint
around
it
in
in
in
the
same
subsection,
but
paragraph
b
objectively
reasonable
under
the
circumstance,
and
so
I
think,
we're
what
you're
just
discussing
here,
where
your
partner's
just
been
shot
in
the
face.
K
G
K
So
senator
settlemyre,
it's
not
about
the
the
filing
of
a
report,
we're
just
collecting
use
of
force
incidents
for
for
kind
of
general
reporting.
This
is
something
las
vegas
metro
already
does
they
have
all
their
use
of
force
incidents
from
2014
to
2019
a
nice
beautiful
report
that
they
put
online?
This
is
not
about
creating
additional
additional
paperwork,
but
just
capturing
how
often
these
things
happen
and
who
was
harmed
and
what
scenarios
this
was
under.
It
is
something
a
couple
of
our
departments
already
doing.
Just
not
all.
G
Appreciate
that
senator
harris,
I
guess
the
last
thing
I
leave
with
is
that
if
we
have
the
officers,
you
know
indicating
how
they
went
about
trying
to
de-escalate
the
situation.
Would
it
not
also
be
pertinent
to
make
sure
that
they
write
in
the
report,
or
somebody
else
writes
in
the
report
about
how
the
person
they
pulled
over
de-escalated?
The
situation
also.
K
G
I
appreciate
that
senator
harrison.
I
guess
that's
exactly
where
I'm
at
shouldn't.
We
also
make
sure
that
somehow
it's
indicated
how
the
person
that
was
in
the
situation,
mr
lentz,
how
that
individual
did
not
do
anything
to
de-escalate
the
situation
themselves.
I
mean
when
I
was
a
kid.
My
dad
taught
me.
G
The
first
thing
you
do
when
you
get
pulled
over
is
leave
your
hands
firmly
on
the
wheel,
so
that
the
officer
doesn't
think
you're
trying
to
grab
something
and
you
be
as
respectful
as
you
can
and
things
of
that
nature
so
that
they
don't
get
you
in
trouble.
But
then
again
when
I
had
my
driver's
license
originally,
I
was
five
foot
two
and
110
pounds,
so
the
police
very
much
like
pulled
me
over
because
they
assumed
I
stole
my
dad's
truck.
K
Understood
happy
to
to
have
some
further
discussions
about
what
data
we're
capturing
and
and
how
we
could
even
even
capture
that.
A
Absolutely
we
will
now
go
to
majority
leader
canazarro
for
questions.
M
Thank
you,
chair
schneiderlin.
I
I
first
I
guess
I
wanted
to
kind
of
preface
this
with
a
bit
of
a
statement.
I
I
first
want
to
thank
senator
harris
for
not
only
bringing
this
bill
forward,
but
for
working
on
it
for
reaching
out
to
law
enforcement.
M
I
know,
there's
still
a
lot
of
work
to
be
done
and,
and
probably
some
other
folks
to
be
spoken
with
to
make
sure
that
we
get
this
policy
right,
and
I
just
I
do
appreciate
her
work
in
that
space,
and
I
you
know-
and
I
will
also
say
that
as
someone
because
it
was
sort
of
mentioned
earlier
in
the
hearing
as
someone
who
is
a
member
of
law
enforcement
in
my
day,
job
who
has
done
this
for
a
decade
who
works
with
law
enforcement
officers
across
the
state
on
a
daily
basis
and
who
has
a
sister-in-law
who
is
in
fact
an
officer.
M
You
know
I
I
would
be
probably
the
first
person
to
tell
you
that
there
are
so
many
amazing
officers
in
our
police
departments
who
really
are
trying
to
do
the
right
thing.
We
do
do
the
right
thing
in
really
tough
circumstances
and
we've
seen
we
have
seen
those
instances
you
know
over
and
over
again.
M
I
have
faith
that
that
is
the
case.
I
work
with
a
lot
of
really
wonderful
officers
and
a
lot
of
really
dedicated
and
wonderful
detectives
who
do
a
great
job
and
who
I
am
proud
to
work
with
every
single
day.
But
I
also
think
that,
as
legislators
and
and
as
members
of
the
community,
we
have
to
make
sure
that
whatever
we
are
asking
of
our
law
enforcement
agency,
we
can
also
say
to
the
community.
M
You
can
trust
that
if
a
police
officer
shows
up
you're
going
to
be
treated
fairly
and
that
situation
is
going
to
be
appropriately
handled,
and
I
think
that
this
is
a
good
step
in
in
that
direction.
So
I
just
I
I
think-
sometimes
I
have
a
I
don't
know
a
unique
perspective
in
that
way
in
recognizing
that
there
is
room
to
say
we
can
hold
police
officers
accountable.
M
I
don't
think
officers
are
afraid
to
be
held
accountable
when
they
are
doing
their
jobs
properly,
and
I
also
know
that
we
have
a
lot
of
really
great
officers,
but
what
we
should
be
doing
is
putting
into
into
place
policy.
That
does
make
sense
that
can
hold
those
who
don't
fall
in
that
definition
accountable
and
where
the
public
can
look
and
say
hey.
M
M
M
You
know
that
that's
exactly
what
they
expect
from
the
officers
and
when
they
show
up
and
do
that,
that
can
be
life-saving
and
we
have
to
be
able
to
have
that,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to.
I
guess,
outlay
that,
because
I
do
think
we
have
a
lot
of
really
good
law
enforcement
in
this
state
and
what
I
sort
of
see
this
bill,
as
is
a
way
to
sort
of
centralize
and
uniformly
apply
what
we
believe
to
be
best
practices
in
terms
of
de-escalation
and
dealing
with
the
public.
M
M
So
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
language
in
the
bill
that
talks
the
references,
de-escalation
and
senator
harris.
He
brought
up
sort
of
that
graphic.
That
shows
the
continuum
of
de-escalation.
M
What
I
want
to
be
clear,
at
least
with
respect
to
the
language
and
the
bill
on
this
de-escalation,
as
I'm
reading
it
here,
is
something
that
we
of
course
want
off
one
officers
in
police
departments,
law
enforcement
agencies
who
teach
we
want
their
officers
to
have
training
in
that,
and
we
want
them
to
actually
use
it
in
the
field
when
I'm
looking
at
this
language-
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
clear
on
this-
that
may
vary
based
upon
the
incident
and
the
individual
circumstances
that
present
themselves
to
that
officer.
K
That
is
correct.
That
is
my
intention.
I
want
police
departments
to
ensure
that
their
police
officers
are
safe.
I
want
police
officers
to
continue
to
be
able
to
keep
themselves
safe,
I'm
simply
asking
that
they
use
those
de-escalation
techniques
before
higher
levels
of
force,
if
it's
feasible
and
safe
for
them
to
do
so.
M
And
I
and
that's
how
I
am
I
am
reading
this
as
well,
and
so
I
just
have
maybe
a
couple
of
hypotheticals
to
make
sure
we
can
kind
of
parse
this
out.
If
you
will
and
if
you'll
indulge
me
a
little
senator
harris.
So
if
we
have
an
instance
where
an
officer
comes
upon
a
scene
and
let's
say,
for
example,
there
is
someone
who
is
in
the
process
of
stabbing
a
victim
and
doesn't
seem
willing
to
stop
even
upon
the
arrival
of
police
presence.
M
K
M
M
K
That
is
correct.
Vice
chair,
canazarro
and
I'll
also
note
that,
while
it
requires
an
officer
to
identify
themselves,
they
can
also
do
so
just
simply
by
being
in
uniform,
and
so
they
are
authorized
to
go
ahead
and
do
what
they
need
to
do.
M
Okay
and
then
obviously,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
de-escalation
is
happening
on
part
of
the
officers,
and
I
want
to
follow
up
on
senator
settlemyre's
question
say
I
think
it's
an
important
point.
K
Thank
you
for
the
the
question
by
stir
canizarro.
It
would
be
and
I'll
point
you
to
section
two
subsection
one
paragraph
b,
sub
paragraph
one.
I
don't
know
if
I've
ever
gone
down
that
far
must
be
balanced
against
the
level
of
force
or
resistance
exhibited
by
the
person,
and
so
that
is
a
factor
that
officers
will
take
into
into
consideration.
M
I
wanted
to
next
move
just
to
the
pieces
of
the
bill
that
deal
with,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I've
got
this
correct
as
well,
because
one
of
the
difficult
things
that
kind
of
came
to
mind
as
I
was
reading
through
it
is
where
we're
talking
about
someone
who
is
you
have
a
list
here
of
individuals
who
may
appear
who
are
or
appear
to
be
under
the
age
of
13
over
the
age
of
70,
physically
frail,
mentally
or
physically
disabled
pregnant
suffering
from
a
mental
or
behavioral
health
issue,
experiencing
a
medical
emergency
so
on
and
so
forth.
M
I
will
say
that
falling
into
at
least
one
of
those
categories,
as
of
recent,
have
definitely
encountered
the
comment.
Well,
you
don't
don't
look
too
pregnant.
So
are
you
sure
you
are
what
happens
where
you
know
you're
talking
about
asking
an
officer
to
sort
of
make
that
judgment
call
right
or
you
see
someone
who
may
look
young
but
they're
actually
a
little
bit
older
and
I
think
senator
settlemeyer
mentioned
he
may
have
fallen
into
that
category
at
some
point
or
someone
who
is
who
is
older
but
doesn't
doesn't
necessarily
appear
older?
M
How
are
we
balancing
that
sort
of
should
have
known
with
how
it
is
that
that
sometimes
folks
may
not
appear
to
fall
into
one
of
those
categories
and
how
would
that
play
with
respect
to
an
officer's
approach
to
a
particular
situation.
K
Thank
you
for
the
question
vice
chair
cannizzaro,
I
think
you're
hitting
on
why
we're
allowing
police
departments
to
adopt
a
written
policy
on
how
to
deal
with
these
persons
to
require
the
training
you
know
my
my
guess
is:
if,
if
someone
appears
10
and
they're,
not
armed
with
a
deadly
weapon,
they
likely
do
not
pose
a
threat
of
serious
bodily
harm,
but
we're
going
to
allow
police
departments
to
come
up
with
policies
and
the
best
training
and
procedures
on
how
to
address
this.
K
I
think
you're
hitting
on
another
important
point
here,
which
is
why
I
have
appears
or
is
known
now.
Of
course,
there
will
be
scenarios
that
don't
fit
into
the
either
of
those
categories
and
that's
why
we
have
an
and
here,
and
so,
if
the
officer,
if
it
doesn't
appear
or
the
officer
doesn't
know,
there,
should
be
no
expectation
that
officers
be
experts
at
identifying
pregnant
women.
M
I
think
that
rounds
out
some
of
my
questions
and
I
I
definitely
I
definitely
appreciate
this
and
I
think
you
know
we
again.
It
really
is
incumbent
upon
us
to
make
sure
that
folks
can
trust
in
law
enforcement
and
that
and
that
we
can
trust
in
them,
and
I
know
I
know
we
can,
because
I
know
we
have
a
lot
of
really
great
folks
working
out
there.
So
I
just
appreciate
your
work
on
this
bill
and
looking
forward
to
missing
where
we
end
up
here.
M
Thank
you
and
thank
you,
church
rival,
absolutely.
A
Thank
you-
and
I
just
have
one
question,
senator
harris
that
I
want
to
make
sure
I'm
understanding,
because
in
the
language
of
the
bill
we
don't
see
written
out
with
the
de-escalation
and
also
with
use
of
force.
A
I
think
you
had
a
great
chart
the
continuum
which
I
believe
came
from
metro.
At
least
I
know
that
metro
has
used
it
and
it's
a
fantastic
resource
to
explain
how
you
know
you
might
get
from
the
least
a
use
of
force
possible
to
the
greatest,
which
would
be
deadly
use
of
force,
but
in
the
middle
it
can
be
different
for
different
officers.
And
so
you
know
an
example
that
I've
seen
often
are
officers
who
have
my
body
type.
A
You
know
smaller
women
and
you
know
they're
still
interacting
with
people
who
are
threatening
our
community,
who
may
be
larger,
faster
stronger,
and
so
I
think
that
the
reason
that
we
don't
see
that
you
know
first,
you
use
a
verbal
warning
and
then
you
can
go
hands-on
and
then
you
can
go
to
baton
and
then
you
can
go
to
x,
y
or
z.
Is
that
because
the
use
of
force
is
somewhat
personal
to
the
officers
and
we're
trusting
them
to
utilize
their
best
judgment
in
the
situation?
K
That
is
absolutely
correct.
Chair
shiva
one
thing
I
did
not
want
to
do
in
this
bill
is
be
overly
prescriptive,
and
so
I
really
tried
to
walk
the
line
of
putting
in
into
place
best
practices,
but
also
allowing
police
departments
and
officers
to
take
different
scenarios
into
into
consideration
and
and
also
feel
like.
They
can
keep
themselves
safe.
A
Excellent,
thank
you
with
that.
I
don't
see
any
other
questions
and
I
think
we
all
ask
questions
of
you.
So
thank
you
again
for
for
your
time
and
attention
we
are
going
to
move
to
testimony
and
support.
I
understand
there
is
at
least
one
person
who
is
currently
on
the
zoom
who
is
in
support,
and
that
is
because
she's
presenting
the
next
bill
with
me.
A
So
this
is
merely
a
administrative
coincidence,
but
I
would
like
to
let
her
testify
first
and
support
again,
not
because
she's
my
favorite,
but
because
of
the
logistical
coincidence
here,
ms
welborn
are
you
there
and
do
you
want
to
testify?
You
will
come
here
all
right.
You
will
have
the
same
two-minute
limit
that
everybody
else
has,
and
you
may
begin.
N
Thank
you,
chair
scheible,
hollywell-born
policy,
director
for
the
aclu
of
nevada,
for
the
record.
Thank
you
senator
harris
for
championing
this
bill
and
bringing
it
forward
and
moving
us
toward
establishing
a
statewide
use
of
force
standard.
It
is
desperately
needed
in
this
state,
just
as
the
individuals
who
came
and
presented
to
you
with
you
today
demonstrated.
We
are
grateful
to
you
for
being
here.
There
is
work
to
be
done
on
this
bill.
N
I
won't
say
that
we
love
the
sections
on
restraint
chairs
and
that
we're
confident
that
it's
going
to
save
lives
as
written,
but
we
are
willing
to
continue
working
with
senator
harris
on
that.
We
also
believe
the
bill
reads
that
if
you're
walking
away
from
a
protest,
you
could
still
be
shot
with
a
projectile,
but
we
will
get
there
and
I'm
confident
we
will
get
there.
I
do
want
to
make
it
abundantly
clear,
however,
and
clear
up
the
record.
I
am
a
member
of
the
chiefs
impact
panel
in
reno.
N
The
the
impact
panel
has
no
power
or
authority
to
make
a
determination
on
whether
or
not
a
use
of
force
incident
is
justified.
That
is
a
determination
that
is
made
by
the
district
attorney.
I
can
attest
to
that
for
every
member
of
that
committee
that
we
are
there
largely
symbolically
there's
no
citizen
review
board
that
has
any
power
or
authority
to
assist
the
district
attorney's
office
in
making
that
determination.
N
That's
something
that
we
should
look
at
changing
in
the
future,
but
no,
we
have
no
authority
to
do
that.
I
want
to
make
that
abundantly
clear
on
the
record
today.
Thank
you
senator
harris.
We
look
forward
to
working
with
you
on
additional
language
and
thank
you
to
the
presenters
who
are
here
today.
Thanks.
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony.
I
understand
we
have
one
more
person
on
zoom
crystal
fullestad,
who
is
also
here
to
testify
and
support,
and
you
will
have
two
minutes.
You
may
begin.
N
Good
afternoon
cherish
schneible
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
chris
mclaughlin
and
I'm
a
second
year
law
student
at
the
boyd
school
of
law.
Today,
I'm
here
to
testify
in
support
of
sb
212..
First,
I
would
like
to
thank
senator
harris
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
This
bill
is
a
step
towards
addressing
police
practices.
I
would
like
to
mainly.
I
would
like
to
highly
emphasize
that
this
is
not
where
the
conversation
surrounding
police
use
before
shall
end.
N
This
is
not
a
discussion
that
just
comes
and
goes
based
on
the
current
social
climate,
as
many
of
us
are
aware
of
the
events
that
occurred
over
the
summer
of
2020.
Specifically,
the
death
of
george
floyd
being
in
a
pandemic,
has
made
it
possible
for
more
people
to
be
aware
of
this
issue,
but
unfortunately
it
did
not
start
there.
Police
use
of
force
has
been
something
to
affect
communities,
especially
communities
of
color.
For
decades.
The
number
one
goal
of
officers
should
be
to
protect
and
preserve
dignity
of
human
life.
N
A
Thank
you
so
much
and
with
that
we
will
move
to
the
phone
lines
for
testimony
and
support
of
sb212.
As
a
reminder,
you
have
two
minutes
to
speak.
That
is
a
maximum,
not
a
minimum.
Please
feel
free
to
indicate
your
support
for
what
a
previous
testifier
said.
You
can
say
ditto
me
too.
I
agree
and
with
that.
D
A
I
will
tell
you
what
senator
hansen
we're
not
going
to
do
that
today
during
the
hearing,
because
they
are
calling
in
simply
in
support,
neutral
or
opposition.
However,
I
would
be
happy
to
discuss
with
you
and
the
sponsor
of
the
bill
facilitating
another
meeting
in
a
in
a
less
formal
setting,
a
kind
of
town
hall
or
a
conference
call
to
ask
those
kinds
of
questions.
D
A
I'm
not
sure
that
we
have
always
done
that,
but
I
am
happy
to
accommodate
the
sharing
of
information
in
this
committee.
So
for
now
we
will
go
to
the
phones
for
testimony
in
support.
I
I
O
Anne-Marie
grant
a-n-n-e-m-a-r-I-e-g-r-a-n-t.
I
am
in
support
of
this
bill
moving
forward
in
hopes
that
some
of
the
language
can
be
tweaked
during
future
discussions.
I
support
it
moving
forward
currently
because
it
because
there
has
to
be
some
type
of
guidelines
in
place.
If
we
aren't
prohibiting
the
use
of
restraint,
is
in
their
entirety.
O
It
was
disheartening
to
see
the
language
prohibiting.
The
use
of
restraint.
Tears
in
its
entirety
was
removed.
As
someone
whose
brother
was
asphyxiated
to
death
in
another
tortured
device
used
incorrectly
and
negligently
by
law
enforcement
in
washer
county
the
rip
hobble
restraint.
I
understand
the
consequences
of
using
these
devices
on
community
members
in
crisis.
O
The
hubble
was
used
to
hard
time.
My
brother,
who,
on
every
single
page
of
the
manual
states,
never
used
a
hogtie.
A
human
being
prohibiting
the
use
for
strangers
is
vital
in
preserving
the
sanctity
of
life.
Countless
people
have
died
and
restrained
tears
at
jails
and
prisons.
These
torture
devices,
as
I
believe
them
to
be
have
claimed
numerous
loved
ones
lies,
nicholas
tara
was
36
years
old,
a
father
and
a
husband
when
he
was
asphyxiated
to
death
on
331
at
clark.
O
County
detention
center
in
nevada
nick
died
within
75
seconds
of
being
placed
in
the
chair
as
deputies
pushed
his
head
down
into
his
knees
to
adjust
the
handcuffs.
I'd
like
to
remind
you
all
that
these
chairs
are
being
used
in
jail,
a
contained
environment
with
plenty
of
staff
available
to
assist
not
in
some
wild,
uncontrolled
environment
text.
Every
15
minutes
is
too
long.
Nick
was
killed
in
less
than
a
minute
and
a
half
while
being
in
a
restraint.
Chair
respiratory
issues
aren't
going
to
wait.
15
minutes
to
occur.
O
If
they're
going
to
happen,
brain
damage
begins
within
four
minutes
of
brain
deprivation.
What
is
law?
Enforcement's
definition
of
evaluate
a
visual
look
at
a
person
isn't
sufficient.
A
verbal
conversation
should
be
had
with
the
person
in
the
torture
device.
Constant
supervision
should
be
the
requirement.
Why
is
it
too
much
to
demand
law
enforcement
fulfill
their
eighth
amendment
constitutional
obligation
to
community
members?
It's
caring
custody,
not
killing,
custody.
I
I
Q
Hello,
thank
you.
I'm
chuck
callaway
c-a-l-l-a-w-a-y,
director
of
intergovernmental
services
for
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department,
I'm
here
in
support
of
the
bill.
I
appreciate
all
the
work
that
senator
harris
has
done
reaching
out
with
us
and
communicating
on
the
bill,
and
much
of
what's
in
this
bill
is
already
in
our
policies
and
procedures.
Q
Q
Q
Lvmpd
has
been
engaged
in
collaborative
reform
for
well
over
a
decade.
We
were
one
of
the
first
agencies
to
implement
body
cameras
in
2013.
We
worked
in
a
collaborative
reform
process
with
the
department
of
justice
and
completed
75
recommendations
that
the
department
of
justice
cops
office
had
recommended.
Q
We
have
a
collaboration
with
outside
entities
and
the
community
to
establish
best
practices
in
our
policy,
we're
one
of
the
first
agencies
to
have
a
duty
to
intervene,
a
duty
to
provide
medical
attention
and
to
put
someone
in
a
recovery
position,
first
agency
that
I'm
aware
of
to
have
a
sanctity
of
life
policy
in
our
policy
and
de-escalation.
In
our
policy,
we
removed
the
lvnr
from
our
policy
before
ab3
last
legislative
session
and
to
just
put
some
things
in
context
very
quickly.
Q
You
know
in
clark
county,
our
population
has
continued
to
increase
prior
to
the
pandemic.
We
have
over
43
million
tourists
a
year,
we've
seen
an
uptick
in
violent
crime,
and
our
officers
handle
1.5
million
calls
for
service
on
average
a
year
plus
hundreds
and
thousands
of
self-initiated
stops,
and
last
year
in
2020,
we
had
19
officer-involved
shootings,
10
of
which
were
fatal
to
one
of
the
questions
asked
by
the
committee
members.
Four
of
those
19
individuals
were
black.
Q
I
I
I
P
P
I
was
told
to
stop
resisting,
even
though
I
wasn't
moving,
I
was
put
in
zip
ties.
Handcuffs
I
had
snipers
on
my
face.
My
stuff
was
thrown
and
I
was
in
a
dress
of
no
threat.
Couldn't
have
been
a
threat,
didn't
have
I
wasn't
armed,
but
at
that
moment
I
was
definitely
fearful
that
I
was
going
to
lose
my
life
just
a
few
days
later.
P
Jorge
gomez,
here
in
las
vegas,
also
lost
his
life
by
the
overt
use
of
force
due
to
the
metro
police
department,
and
so
I
just
want
to
ask
you
all
to
support
this
bill,
not
specifically
to
just
address.
P
What's
going
on
in
reno,
because
las
vegas
metro
department
has
just
previously
spoke
about
the
work
that
they're
doing
here,
but
to
take
it
further
and
hold
people
accountable
for
the
injustices
and
the
abuse
that
people
have
faced
throughout
the
whole
2020
year
and
not
only
in
the
may
protest,
but
throughout
the
whole
summer
and
continuous
and
continuing
on
to
this
year.
I
really
appreciate
you
all
listening
to
me
and
please
remember.
P
I
I
B
Hello,
my
name
is
nisa
sun,
nissfa
tzun.
I
am
a
resident
of
clark
county
and
also
the
co-founder
of
the
force
trajectory
project
and
the
representative
families,
united
for
justice
and
nationwide
network
of
families
impacted
by
police
homicide
connecting
hundreds
of
families,
organizing
for
systemic
change.
I
am
in
support
of
this
bill
while
it's
not
perfect.
This
is
a
great
start
and
I
encourage
senator
harris
to
continue
working
with
our
directly
impacted
community,
like
our
local
chapter,
that
represents
over
20
cases
of
police
violence.
B
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
almatada's
mother
of
raphael
is
killed
by
lvlpd,
where
she
witnessed
her
son's
murder
and
was
denied
access
to
him
afterwards
and
was
also
denied
being
interviewed
as
a
witness.
According
to
what
she
experienced.
Metro
did
not
verbally
identify
themselves
when
they
shot
her
son
to
death.
I'm
also
speaking
on
behalf
of
laura
benson
mother
of
nathan,
benson,
a
mental
illness
sufferer
who
was
shot
by
police
in
the
stomach
and
to
this
day
still
is
in
pre-trial
detention.
B
Eight
years
later,
the
wound
in
the
stomach
still
unhealed,
because
ccdc
refuses
to
pay
for
the
surgeries
he
needs
to
heal.
The
legislators
who
find
this
bill
unnecessary
are
quite
simply
blind
to
the
rank
of
police
violence
that
exists
in
our
state
you're,
not
listening.
Currently
we
have
an
art
exhibit
focused
on
the
experiences
of
families
who
have
been
impacted
by
police
violence
at
the
west,
las
vegas
library.
B
I
implore
you
to
please
go
and
check
it
out
so
that
you
can
open
your
hearts
to
the
experiences
of
those
impacted
by
police
violence
unless
unleashed
by
the
nevada
police.
Well,
I
think
there
should
be
a
complete
ban
of
the
restraint
chair.
I
support
this
bill
because
limiting
its
use
will
undoubtedly
save
lives
and
protect
people.
B
The
restraint
chair
is
supposedly
for
de-escalation
to
help
calm
people
down,
but
in
reality
it's
being
used
punitively
as
torture,
and
I
know
this
because
we
have
interviewed
multiple
witnesses
and
victims
of
the
restraint
care
and
those
who
have
lost
loved
ones
to
the
straight
chair
or
have
themselves
been
tortured
in
the
restraint
channel,
meaning
they
were
choked
out
while
in
detention.
The
trauma
included
upon
our
impacted
community
needs
to
stop
their
voices
need
to
be
heard
and,
frankly,
the
legislature
needs
to
be
more
proactive
in
sourcing
the
voices
of
those
impacted
by
police
violence.
I
I
P
P
P
As
a
family
member
witnessing
what
happened
to
him
was
uncalled
for,
and
my
call
to
action
here
is
seeing
how
you
all
are
going
to
fix
that.
It's
not
okay
for
anyone
to
be
murdered,
it
doesn't
matter
their
size,
it
doesn't
matter
their
nationality.
This
is
happening
in
america.
This
is
happening
in
nevada.
This
happened
to
my
uncle
and
it's
not
okay.
I
C
I
am
the
brother
of
nicholas
farah,
who
was
killed
by
las
vegas
metro
less
than
two
years
ago,
while
he
was
not
an
immediate
threat
to
himself
or
others,
he
was
immediately
placed
into
a
restraint
chair
when
arriving
at
clark
county
detention
center
in
under
two
minutes.
Four
officers
had
killed
him
by
now,
not
allowing
him
to
breathe
all
while
several
other
officers
and
medical
personnel
were
watching
and
within
six
feet
of
them.
This
is
not
uncommon.
C
I've
talked
to
numerous
other
inmates
who
have
lost
consciousness
while
also
in
the
chair
and
have
also
come
very
close
to
dying
as
well
parkour.
Do
you
think?
That's
just
better.
Excuse
me
use
this
as
a
weapon
on
a
daily
basis.
This
is
a
huge
reason
why
many
other
cities
and
states
have
completely
banned.
The
chair.
They've
also
killed
multiple
people.
Not
only
is
this
a
huge
liability
for
the
city
in
the
state,
but
no
other
family
members
should
also
have
to
go
through
this.
C
C
I
P
Tanya
brown
t-o-n-j-a-e-r-o-w-n
advocates
for
the
inmates
and
the
nsf.
We
would
like
to
echo
the
comments
made
by
the
previous
callers
and,
first
of
all,
I'd
like
to
thank
senator
harris
for
bringing
this
bill.
If
this
bill
is
long
overdue,
I
do
there's
a.
I
do
have
a
concern
with
the
amendments
and
I
just
a
suggestion.
P
Under
section
4
section,
4,
section
4c,
I
think
it
should
read
that
the
person
must
be
asked
if
they
have
any
physical
or
dis
physical
disability
before
they
are
placed
in
a
restraint
chair
more
than
two
hours.
And
if
the
answer
is
yes,
then
it
should
go
back
to
subsection
three
subsection
d.
P
I
think
and
I
believe
that
the
restraints
should
be
removed
every
15
minutes
allowing
the
person
to
stand
and
then
be
placed
back
into
the
restraints
of
a
chair.
It
restrains
the
chair-
and
I
say
this
on
personal
reasons.
If
I'm
saying
hypothetically
that
if
I
got
arrested
and
I
was
placed
into
a
restraints
chair,
I
would
have
some
some
disa.
P
I
have
a
disability
and
I
would
have
some
issues
with
being
in
that
chair
and
if
I
was
in
there
for
any
length
of
a
taunt
in
any
length
of
time,
I
could
see
becoming
a
little
upset
to
where
they
could
use
extended
force.
On
me.
P
I
have
nerve
damage
due
to
a
back
injury
and
if
I
have
to
sit
around
in
a
chair
or
in
a
restraint,
it
would
lead
to
some
excruciating
pain
that
I
would
not
want
to
be
subjected
to,
and
I
would
be
very
vocal
about
it
and
I
could
see
myself
or
somebody
else
being
vocal
about
it
and
then
being
restrained
even
more.
So
I
think
that
should
be
looked
at.
I
B
Good
afternoon
this
is
kendra
burchie
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office,
k-e-n-d-r-a
c-e-r-t-s-d-h-y.
I
first
want
to
thank
senator
harris
for
championing
this
incredibly
important
issue.
I
believe
that
everyone
on
this
committee
heard
the
cries
from
the
community
members
demanding
that
there
be
change
for
some
accountability
and
transparency
with
the
police
agencies
in
nevada
due
to
the
deaths
that
have
occurred
here
in
nevada.
B
I
I
I
E
Good
afternoon,
chair
schreibel
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
I'd
like
to
thank
senator
john
pierro,
john
p-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county
bank
center,
bringing
this
important
measure
forward.
If
you
want
something
you've
never
had,
you
have
to
do
something,
never
done
and
it's
time
for
us
to
reckon
with
things
we've
never
reckoned
with,
and
I
think
it's
also
time-
and
I
could
say
this
as
a
white
man
to
the
other
white
men
on
this
committee-
that
we
need
to
acknowledge
that.
Sometimes
our
experiences
aren't
the
same
as
our
black
and
brown
counterparts.
C
E
E
Look
at
being
ignored
for
far
too
long
and
reckon
with
it,
but
it's
time
that
we
do
reckon
with
it
as
a
person
that
was
out
legally
observing
at
the
protest.
I
did
personally
witness
metro
to
people
in
the
back
with
pepper
bullets
walking
away,
I
watched
them
gas
people
without
appropriate
warnings.
E
I
B
L-I-F-A-R-A-S-M-U-S-S-E-N
I
want
to
thank
senator
harris
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
Nacj
supports
the
bill,
I
I
don't.
We
don't
love
some
of
the
amendments
that
were
made,
particularly
with
regard
to
the
restraint
chair
issue,
which
is
an
issue
that's
been
mentioned
by
others,
but
we
absolutely
will
continue
to
work
with
senator
harris
on
the
bill,
and
you
know,
knowing
just
you
know
not.
Everybody
gets
everything
they
want
in
a
bill,
and
I
applaud
her
for
the
work
that
she's
done
on
this.
Mr
pirro
is
exactly
right.
B
My
experience
as
a
white
person
is
different
than
the
experience
of
many
of
our
clients,
who
are
colored
persons
of
color
they're
they're,
black
they're
brown.
I
think
that
that
bill
is
really
important
and
nacj
supports
it.
Thank
you
for
letting
me
speak.
I
don't
want
to
repeat
kind
of
what
others
have
said.
I
C
Vice
chair
cannizzaro
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
corey
sulforino,
c-o-r-e-y,
s's
and
spam-o-l
f
and
frank
e-r-I-n-o,
and
I
represent
the
washington
county
sheriff's
office.
I
want
to
take
this
opportunity
to
thank
senator
harris
for
her
tenacity
and
passion
for
this
bill.
She's
been
an
active
dialogue
with
law
enforcement,
public
defenders,
district
attorneys
and
other
community
stakeholders
during
the
interim
and
well
into
this
81st
session.
C
Senator
harris
has
been
interested
in
learning
industry,
best
practices
and
standards
in
law
enforcement
has
been
instrumental
in
bringing
all
parties
together
to
foster
mutual
respect
and
understanding.
The
washington
county
sheriff's
office
appreciates
her
efforts
and,
with
the
amendment
presented
today,
we
are
in
support
of
sb212.
C
The
washoe
county
sheriff's
office
believes
in
increased
training
opportunities
and
policy
guidance
when
clearly
and
thoughtfully
crafted
to
help
build
a
stronger
law
enforcement
community.
I'm
proud
to
work
for
a
progressive
agency
which
has
addressed
these
criminal
justice
reforms
over
the
course
of
the
last
10
years
and
continues
to
strive
for
industry
best
practices
as
stewards
of
our
community.
C
De-Escalation
techniques
were
instructed
to
me
in
1999,
in
my
regional
law
enforcement
academy,
called
verbal
judo
they've,
evolved
over
the
years
into
enhanced
active
listening
skills,
critical
incident
and
stress
management
and
the
40-hour
block
of
crisis,
intervention,
training
being
taught
in
our
academies
and
agencies.
Today,
these
are
not
new
concepts.
Officers
do
not
want
to
use
force
until
they
must
protect
life,
the
life
of
others
and
to
affect
a
lawful
arrest
law
enforcement
takes
a
reactive
role
in
most
use
of
force.
Incidents
where
the
subject
has
an
opportunity
to
comply,
chooses
otherwise
use
of
force.
C
Incidents
are
compounded
exponentially
when
you
account
for
the
mental
health
issues
and
substance
abuse
dependency
plaguing
our
communities.
Today,
the
creation
and
deployment
of
our
most
teams,
cit
officers,
od
map,
spike
alerts
and
evidence-based
practices,
drive
programs
that
direct
law
enforcement
efforts
to
be
more
effective
and
efficient
in
their
response.
C
Currently,
the
wcso
completes
over
23
hours
of
in-person
annual
training,
an
additional
26
and
a
half
hours
of
virtual
interactive
and
online
training
minimally.
They
are
to
follow
legislative
mandates,
post
recommendations
and
agency
directives.
Our
recently
completed
community
survey
was
overwhelmingly
positive,
but
we've
identified
room
for
improvement.
Sheriff
balaam
will
champion
those
recommendations
with
his
executive
team
to
ensure
we
are
listening
to
the
community
we
serve.
We
are
happy
to
represent
northern
nevada
law
enforcement
and
appreciate
the
overwhelming
support
we
have
of
our
community.
We
are
proud
to
serve
you.
C
I
C
It
is
because
of
this
cooperative
deliberation
and
the
resulting
amendment
before
you
today
that
we
are
able
to
arrive
here
in
a
supportive
position.
I
do
need
to
be
clear
that
the
nevada,
sheriffs
and
chiefs
association
does
not
agree
with
many
of
the
inflammatory
points
made
in
senator
harris's
presentation,
most
especially
the
bias
inherent
data
presented
to
this
committee
from
mappingpoliceviolence.org
go
to
their
website.
Look
at
their
flawed
methodology.
They
consider
death
at
the
hands
of
an
off-duty
officer
in
their
data.
C
So
if
an
off-duty
cop
is
a
father
and
hears
his
child
scream
for
help
in
the
middle
of
the
night
in
the
next
room
and
rushes
in
to
find
a
person,
who's
broken
in
and
is
raping,
his
daughter
and
the
off-duty
cop
strikes
him
to
stop
the
assault,
but
the
assailant
dies
that
killing
quote-unquote
would
be
entered
into
the
mapping
police
violence
database.
As
an
unarmed
civilian
killed
by
police,
that's
absurd.
Their
data
is
flawed,
based
on
their
own
methodology
on
another
matter.
Modern
law
enforcement
worldwide
has
done
away
with
this.
C
1970S
quote:
use
of
forced
continuum
or
a
stair-stepping
method
of
considering
force
that
you've
heard
here
today,
as
it
increases
potential
for
excessive
use
of
force
or
an
improper
stepping
down
from
force.
So
law
enforcement
finds
that
proper
training
in
the
use
of
force
decision
making
process,
coupled
with
the
de-escalation
training
in
an
effort
to
reduce
use
of
forces,
is
the
optimal
way
to
train
officers
in
the
application
of
force.
C
Not
a
use
of
force
continuum
for
section
three
of
the
bill:
nevada,
sheriffs
and
chiefs
association
did
query
the
sheriffs
and
chiefs
of
police
on
use
of
forced
data
collection
and
reporting
to
the
fbi
and
found
that
63
of
those
that
responded
to
that
survey
do
not
currently
report
the
national
use
of
force.
Data
collection,
but
53
supporting
support.
I
R
Maybe
leslie
turner,
l-e-s-l-I-e-t-u-r
and
e-r.
First.
Thank
you
senator
harris
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
It's
a
step
forward
in
addressing
the
violent,
the
police,
violence
that
we've
seen
in
our
communities.
My
entire
life,
simply
because
taking
the
life
can
fit
into
the
framework
of
policy,
doesn't
make
it
justifiable
and
brought
in
the
broader
society.
R
We
have
to
move
towards
making
sure
that
we
are
putting
human
life
at
the
forefront
always
and
when
a
person
dies
at
the
hands
of
law
enforcement,
we
should
look
in
depth
at
what
happened
there
and
objectively
try
to
prevent
it
from
happening
in
the
future.
I
have
watched
many
body
cam
footages.
I
have
watched
recorded
cell
phone
footage
of
numerous
people
being
killed
by
law
enforcement
and
when
we
watch
these
videos
it
should
not
be
the
through
the
lens
of
figuring
out
whether
or
not
the
loss
of
life
was
justifiable
within
policies.
R
R
Someone
on
the
panel
said
that
the
police
keep
us
safe.
I
think
that's
a
very
subjective
statement
and
it
also
erases
the
experiences
of
black
people,
undocumented
people,
people
in
my
community
who,
when
we
see
the
police,
we
actually
don't
feel
safe.
We
actually
feel
the
opposite.
R
R
It's
actually
sickening
that
we're
we
throw
out
an
arbitrary
four
of
them
were
black
because,
like
their
lives,
also
mattered,
and
what
this
is
actually
about
is
systemic
racism
ingrained
in
the
fabric
of
this
country.
That's
also
ingrained
in
the
system
of
policing.
R
R
We
have
to
stop
using
absolute
worst
case
scenarios
possible,
rather
than
listening
to
what's
actually
happening
to
people
on
the
ground
in
over
police
communities.
Right
now
in
our
in
our
neighborhoods
today
and
also
calling
out
injustice,
is
not
hatred,
the
community
that
lives
these
policies
every
single
day
that
are
police
in
our
communities
every
single
day.
Our
voices
are
also
valid,
and
we
are
experts
on
the
things
that
have
happened
to
our
families
and
happen
for
our
loved
ones.
The
community
needs
to
define
what
keeps
us
safe,
not
law
enforcement.
I
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much.
Mr
kyle.
I
just
want
to
confirm
for
everybody
listing
in
that
there's
nobody
else
in
the
queue
to
give
support.
Testimony.
A
All
right,
in
that
case,
we
will
move
on
to
testimony
in
opposition.
I
also
want
to
let
the
committee
and
those
listing
along
know
that
I
have
had
a
chance
to
reach
out
to
my
co-presenter
on
sb
258.
That
is
my
bill.
I
will
be
moving
this
bill
to
another
day,
most
likely
monday
at
1pm
to
allow
plenty
of
time
for
all
of
the
testimony
in
opposition
and
neutral
before
we
have
to
get
to
other
committees
and
other
meetings.
I
apologize
for
the
inconvenience
for
anybody
who
is
here
to
hear
sb258.
A
I
E
E
We
represent
the
officers
who
use
this
use
of
force
model.
The
decision
to
use
force
is
never
an
easy
decision
for
an
officer.
However,
as
a
part
of
our
profession
is
already
heavily
regulated
and
attempting
to
regulate
it.
Further
will
subject
the
subjective
language
will
cause
confusion
and
cause
peace
officers
to
get
possibly
injured
or
killed.
E
The
concerns
of
the
lbpa
and
its
3
500
represented
law
enforcement
professionals
are
as
follows.
In
section
two,
this
section
goes
on
to
talk
about
training
as
it
relates
to
use
of
force
and
use
of
force
under
sub-section.
Three,
the
lbm
lbpa
would
welcome
the
following.
Each
law
enforcement
agency
shall
adopt
a
written
policy
and
provide
training
to
a
police
officer
regarding
the
potential
threat
of
serious
bodily
harm
or
death
to
the
peace
officers
or
others
quote
unquote.
E
The
lvppa
would
object
to
subsections
one
through
seven
and
would
ask
for
removal
of
these
areas,
based
on
the
following
making
statements
of
how
the
training
should
identify
a
subcategory
of
who
lawmakers
quote
unquote,
feel,
aren't
or
do
not
pose.
A
threat
to
an
officer
are
not
needed
to
be
addressed
in
law,
end
and
or
policy
to
mandate.
A
policy
in
a
section
on
best
practices
is
fair
enough.
Every
time
an
officer
uses
force
whether
it
be
low
level
or
deadly
force.
Many
factors
go
through
an
officer's
head.
E
Those
factors
include
officer
making
an
assessment
on
threat
itself
to
include
the
subject's
ability.
Lvmpd
policy
relates
to
four
factors:
it's
the
ability,
someone's
ability
to
do
harm
to
another
opportunity,
typically
closely
linked
to
proximity.
Am
I
close
enough
to
harm
you?
Can
I
can
I
harm
you
imminent
jeopardy
for
deadly
force
in
jeopardy
for
non-deadly
force,
a
reasonable
fear
that
something
is
going
to
happen
or
is
about
to
happen
in
conclusion
that
all
the
reasonable
options
have
failed
and
would
have
failed.
E
The
four
the
space
for
these
four
cornerstones
for
force
cover
a
wide
range
of
avenues
for
using
force.
There's
no
need
to
outline
what
the
training
should
encompass
that
should
be
decided
by
the
agency
as
long
as
they
connect
the
above
four
cornerstones
of
force
under
section
three:
it
states
the
number
of
police
complaints,
as
well
as
sustained
complaints
for
force
will
be
collected.
The
lbpa
would
oppose
any
position
action.
E
I
I
C
C
I
am
here
as
an
honorably,
retired
reno
police,
major
crimes,
detective
on
behalf
of
the
reno
police,
protective
association,
as
a
member
of
the
public
safety
alliance
in
nevada
and
on
behalf
of
our
families
and
victims
of
crimes
in
our
state.
First
and
foremost,
police
do
not
use
force
based
on
race.
Please
use
force
based
on
the
actions
of
the
person
they
are
dealing
with.
Police
officers
follow
the
use
of
force
policies
when
dealing
with
the
public
officers
are
very
well
trained
and
employ
the
use
of
forced
continuums
to
guide
them.
C
No
officer
goes
to
work,
hoping
to
hurt
someone.
All
officers
go
to
work,
hoping
to
save
someone
when
an
officer
is
required
by
the
situation
to
use
force.
They
do
so
only
to
the
level
necessary
to
control
the
situation
codifying
the
use
of
force
provisions
as
described
in
this
bill,
is,
and
has
already
been
part
of
all
of
the
policies
and
procedures
of
our
law
enforcement
departments
in
nevada.
We
have
had
and
do
currently
utilize
an
escalation
of
forced
policy.
Contrary
to
what
has
been
said
in
this
committee,
we
are
not
racist.
C
The
policies
is
forced
when
it's
required.
What
requires
and
dictates
the
use
of
force,
the
actions
of
the
person
and
the
officer
you're
dealing
with
what
is
not
in
our
policies
and
procedures,
those
provisions
of
section
2
sub
3,
because
these
provisions
place
huge
obstacles
on
police
officers
when
encountering
suspects
in
crimes.
How
do
you
codify
subjectivity?
C
How
do
you
codify
a
person's
age
if
they
are
physically
frail
their
mental
condition
or
where
someone
is
pregnant,
etc?
Another
section
is
section
2,
sub
1..
The
ambiguity
of
this
section
requires
the
officers
must
use
the
escalation
techniques
wherever
possible.
They
already
do
this
incidents
turn
deadly
in
an
instant.
Our
training
teaches
us
to
react
immediately
to
a
deadly
situation.
A
deadly
situation
can
occur
in
an
instant
like
that
to
state
and
section
2b
to
use
force
that
is
objectively
reasonable.
How
do
we
codify
that?
C
The
bill,
handcuffs,
our
peace
officers
and
allowing
them
to
serve
and
protect
this
bill
will
result
in
an
officer
or
a
member
of
the
public
being
hurt
or
killed?
Our
police
officers
do
need
to
have
the
authority
to
do
their
jobs.
Like
a
colorado.
Look
at
reno
look
at
las
vegas.
Look
at
washington
d.c.
We
do
not
need
to
die
at
the
hands
of
our
peace
officers
by
restricting
their
ability
to
do
their
job.
C
I
I
B
Tara
scheibel
and
members
of
the
committee.
This
is
callie
wilsey
on
behalf
of
the
city
of
reno,
that's
spelled
c
a
l
l,
I
w.
I
l
s
of
m
sam
e
y.
While
we
are
here
in
opposition
today,
we
have
not
had
an
opportunity
to
review
the
amendment
in
advance
of
today's
hearing
and
we
look
forward
to
doing
so.
We've
reached
out
to
the
sponsor
and
we're
hoping
to
take
part
in
the
conversations
on
this
bill
going
forward,
along
with
the
other
law
enforcement
agencies
that
you
heard
from
today.
B
I
did
want
to
clarify
for
the
record
some
information
regarding
the
reno
police
department's
use
of
force
policy
and
the
data
that
was
provided
today.
Our
use
of
force
policy
has
a
use
of
force
continuum.
It
addresses
de-escalation,
it
includes
comprehensive
reporting.
Additionally,
it
prohibits
techniques
techniques
that
restrict
a
person's
airway
or
ability
to
breathe
a
warning.
It
requires
a
warning
before
using
deadly
force,
officers
are
required
to
intervene
in
excessive
force
situations,
prohibit
shooting
at
vehicles,
as
well
as
additional
details
that
were
discussed
today.
B
B
I
C
Good
afternoon
committee,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
troyce
t-r-o-y-c-e,
crewme
k-r-u-m-m-e
and
I'm
the
vice
chairman
of
the
las
vegas
police
managers
and
supervisors
association
and
a
member
of
the
public
safety
alliance
of
nevada,
representing
numerous
police
associations
having
membership
of
over
10
000
peace
officers
across
our
state.
I'm
also
willing
to
make
myself
available
to
any
member
of
the
committee
on
this
important
issue
and
would
be
encouraged
to
be
included
as
a
stakeholder.
Today,
pursuant
to
committee
rules,
I'm
testifying
in
opposition
test
be
212.
C
The
purpose
of
a
loss
of
a
lawful
use
of
force
is
to
use
a
reasonable
level
of
force
to
overcome
resistance
to
bring
a
person
into
custody.
I
would
encourage
this
language
to
appear
in
the
bill.
Should
it
move
forward
in
section
4,
subsection,
3
letter
c,
I
suggest
language
to
the
effect
of
quote
when
feasible
end
quote.
C
Sometimes
the
immediate
need
to
use
the
restraint
chair
for
the
safety
of
the
inmate
and
others
can
preclude
the
opportunity
for
prior
notice
to
medical
staff
in
letter
d
below
that
requiring
a
member
of
medical
staff
to
perform
an
evaluation
prior
to
the
use
of
a
restrained
chair
could
unnecessarily
place
that
medical
staff
member
in
this
physical
danger
mandating
the
evaluation
as
soon
as
possible
after
the
person
is
in
the
chair,
should
suffice
and
is
the
safest
way
to
do
so
for
everyone.
I
offer
these
particular
words
are
not
hypo
hyperbole.
C
As
just
two
days
ago,
in
an
iowa
detention
facility,
a
correctional
officer
and
nurse
were
murdered
by
an
inmate,
while
in
the
prison
infirmary
safety
to
all
persons,
officers,
jailed
persons
and
civilian
staff
should
all
be
prioritized
when
discussing
legislation
such
as
this.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
and
as
always,
I
just
want
to
confirm
one
more
time
for
clarity
of
the
record,
mr
kyle,
that
there
is
nobody
else
in
the
queue
to
give
opposition
testimony.
A
Sorry,
I'm
just
checking
to
see
that
we
still
have
all
of
our
members
of
the
committee
present.
We
did
receive
another
bdr
during
the
course
of
this
meeting.
It
is
bdr
14-375,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
all
the
members
of
the
committee
have
had
time
to
review
it.
So
is
there
anybody
who
needs
more
time
to
review
the
bdr,
or
are
you
ready
for
a
discussion
and
possibly
emotion
on
it.
D
A
I
I
understand,
and
for
that
reason
let's
go
ahead
and
move
to.
K
A
A
All
right,
I
will
reconvene
the
senate
committee
on
the
judiciary
before
I
forget.
I
will
now
close.
Well,
I,
yes,
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
sb212.
I'm
sorry
senator
harris.
We
did
not
have
time
to
go
back
for
any
final
comments
or
responses
before
we
took
our
little
break.
Would
you
like
to
make
any
now.
K
I
would
not
share
scheibel.
I
think
the
committee
has
given
plenty
of
time
to
this
issue
and
I
appreciate
everyone's
attention.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
You
all
right
having
closed
the
hearing
on
sb212,
we
will
now
open
the
conversation
on
bdr
14-375.
Pursuant
to
senate
joint
standing
rule,
14
committee
members
must
vote
to
approve
the
drafting
of
legislative
measures
requested
by
the
senate
committee
on
judiciary
on
behalf
of
various
entities.
Please
remember:
a
vote
in
favor
does
not
indicate
your
support
for
the
bill,
but
merely
allows
the
bills
to
be
drafted.
Today.
I
request
the
committee's
approval
of
bdr
14-375
requested
by
the
interim
committee
on
the
study
of
pre-trial
release.
A
N
D
H
A
Yes,
and
with
that,
the
motion
passes
to
introduce
bdr
14-375.
I
appreciate
everybody's
cooperation
with
the
second
round
of
bdr
introductions
during
this
deadline
period
and
with
that
I
believe
we
are
ready
to
move
on
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
A
Could
bps
please
allow
anybody
wishing
to
give
a
public
comment.
Two
minutes
per
person,
starting
now.
I
I
R
Thank
you,
chair
schreibel
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
I'm
jason
guenasso
g-u-I-n-a-s-s-o,
I'm
an
attorney
for
the
police
officer,
research,
association
of
nevada.
I
tried
to
speak
in
opposition,
but
there
was
a
technical
difficulty,
maybe
on
my
part,
so
I'd
like
to
give
my
testimony
in
opposition
now
as
a
part
of
public
comment.
R
Foreign
opposes
this
legislation.
That's
currently
written,
however,
porrin
does
not
oppose
evidence-based
police
reform.
Porin
supports
evidence-based
efforts
to
improve
how
police
protect
and
serve
our
communities.
R
Unfortunately,
some
of
the
proposals
in
this
legislation
to
change
how
police
use
force
are
not
supported
by
peer-reviewed
evidence,
data
and
the
decades
of
experience
of
police
officer
professionals
regarding
best
practices
in
policing.
Rather,
this
proposed
legislation
is
largely
supported
by
narratives
of
extreme
and
tragic
incidents
of
a
few
bad
actors
or
narratives
that
have
been
aggregated
in
a
database
while
narratives
and
narrative
evidence
are
useful
to
help
understand
why
the
legislation
might
be
needed.
R
Narratives
do
not
supply
evidence
as
to
why
the
proposed
changes
to
law
and
policy
will
improve
upon
the
work
being
done
by
police
to
protect
and
serve
our
communities.
To
our
knowledge,
there
has
been
no
effort
by
the
bill
sponsored
or
any
of
the
supporters
of
legislation
to
provide
evidence
supporting
the
assertion
that
the
changes
to
law
will
actually
improve
how
police
protect
and
serve
our
nevada
communities.
Their
senator
referred
to
best
practices,
but
but
best
practices
do
not.
They
did
not
provide
evidence
to
show
that
those
proposals
were
in
fact
best
practices.
R
By
contrast,
the
current
law
and
policy
at
the
state
and
local
level
regarding
police
use
of
force
has
been
developed
over
the
past
50
years,
based
on
evidence,
data
and
experiences
of
law
enforcement.
While
there
is
always
room
to
improve,
we
respectfully
submit
to
you
and
the
committee
that
the
proposed
changes
to
law
contained
here
and
have
not
been
subjected
the
same
evidence-based
review
and
scrutiny
supporting
our
current
law
and
policy
at
the
local
level,
foreign
is
willing
to
work
with
senator
harris
and
others
on
evidence-based
reforms
to
police
use
of
force.
R
Unfortunately,
today
the
senator
has
not
invited
the
officers
from
our
association
to
have
a
seat
at
the
table
when
drafting
this
legislation.
Madam
chair,
I'm
sure
working
together,
we
can
achieve
the
good
intentions
of
senator
harris
and
others
who
want
to
codify
policing
best
practices
and
improve
how
police
officers
protect
and
serve
our
communities.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
testimony
and
I
would
ask
that
the
record
reflect
that
mr
guinasso's
testimony
was
in
opposition
to
sb
212,
even
though
we
have
closed
the
hearing
on
that
bill.
We
will
add
your
testimony
to
the
record
as
if
you
had
called
in
during
opposition
and
not
had
the
technical
difficulties
and
with
that
we'll
return
to
your
public
comment.
I
S
S
I'd
like
to
state
that
you
know
the
use
of
force
policy
has
to
be
discussed,
reviewed
and
revised,
including
accountability,
definition
and
consequence,
because
people
have
been
harmed
and
have
been
killed
in
these
situations
with
the
police,
as
one
car
call
stated
earlier.
A
death
for
any
reason
is
a
failure.
S
I
have
witnessed
myself
and
been
harmed
by
excessive
force,
while
in
public,
while
held
kidnapped
in
various
jails
or
concentration
concentration
camps
and
also
during
protests.
Language
in
in
some
areas
needs
to
be
improved,
especially
in
the
sections
that
state
may.
Instead
of
must,
as
we
know,
that
is
always
ambiguous.
S
I've
also
witnessed
in
person
a
kidnap,
protester,
physically
assaulted
and
then
restrained
inhumanely
in
a
restraint
chair
after
refusing
to
put
his
hands
in
his
mouth
to
allow
officers
to
see
if
anything
was
in
his
mouth
during
a
time
of
covid,
he
requested
gloves.
He
requested
his
hands
to
be
washed,
he
requested
hand
sanitizer
and
was
denied
that
and
when
he
refused
to
stick
his
hands
in
his
mouth,
he
was
physically
harmed,
restrained
in
a
charcoaled
and
then
put
into
a
restraint
chair.
S
S
You
know
during
times
of
protests
in
las
vegas,
so
we
need
to
be
more
diligent,
with
oversight
on
the
use
of
force
policies
in
this
state
and
in
our
cities,
and
what
we
see
across
our
state
is
that
it's
inconsistent,
we
see
las
vegas,
reno,
north
las
vegas,
henderson
varying
and
the
levels
of
you
know
the
the
consistency
of
their
policy.
So
I
believe
that
this
bill
may
attempt
to
provide
some
consistency
over
these
policies.
A
Thank
you,
miss
freedom
and
again
I
would
like
the
record
to
reflect
that
her
testimony
was
in
the
neutral
position
on
sb
212..
I
understand
we
all
have
technical
difficulties,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
is
properly
recorded
in
our
minutes
and
now,
once
again,
let's
return
to
public
comment.
I
I
O
The
officers
who
put
my
brother
in
the
rip
hobble
torture
device
at
the
peppa
mill
casino,
kept
him
face
down
with
the
knee
and
his
back
and
neck
while
hog
tied
well,
they
filled
out
their
paperwork,
never
turning
him
over
onto
his
side
into
a
recovery
position.
The
whole
time
I
can
provide
the
police
reports.
My
brother
never
assaulted
anyone.
He
was
terrified
out
of
his
mind.
Someone
was
trying
to
kill
him
and
ask
for
help.
No
ambulance
was
ever
called
even
after
being
put
in
the
torture
device
for
over
40
minutes.
O
I
can't
speak
to
clark
county,
but
I
can
to
washoe
county
if
someone
were
to
die
in
washoe
county
by
means
of
asphyxiation
d.a
chris
hicks
does
not
investigate
like
he
does
in
officer-involved
shootings.
The
officers
who
put
my
brother
in
the
torture
device
at
the
mill.
I'm
sorry
about
that
part
honestly
until
graham
v,
connor
and
tennessee
v
gone,
are
overturned
the
whole
reasonable.
This
thing
and
da's
prosecute
police
who
use
excessive
force
or
kill
due
to
negligence,
I
feel
like
watered-down
bills,
are,
is
putting
a
band-aid
over
a
deep
wound.
O
Watered-Down
bills
are
not
designed
to
prosecute
police,
but
rather
to
restore
public
confidence
in
the
police.
They
are
used
to
defuse
demand
for
prosecuting
police
brutality
and
minimize
punishment
for
guilty
cops.
What
families
really
want
is
true
change,
so
now
that
no
other
family
knows
this
pain
and
for
our
loved
ones
to
be
their
killers
to
be
held
accountable
as
anyone
not
wearing
a
badge
would
be.
People
who
want
accountability
and
transparency
are
automatically
labeled
cop
haters,
that's
pretty
telling
I
don't
hate
cops.
O
I
just
like
bad
cops
and
those
who
cover
up
their
wrong
doings
and
just
some
data.
Six
people
have
been
killed
during
interactions
with
police
in
reno,
washout,
county
nevada.
Since
the
year
2000,
who
identified
as
black
lion
county
interesting
fact,
the
last
man
killed
was
66
year
old
owen,
earl
barton
on
january
16
2020
his
13
year
old
grandson,
who
was
autistic,
was
later
shot
by
salt
lake
city
pd
on
9
5,
20
20..
Thank
you.
I
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
help.
Having
completed
all
of
the
public
comment.
That
concludes
our
hearing.
For
today,
we
will
be
meeting
tomorrow
at
1pm
and
we
are
now.