►
Description
House Criminal Justice Committee - March 3, 2021 - House Hearing Room 2
A
Welcome
to
the
house
criminal
justice
committee
march,
the
3rd
2020.
members.
There
have
been
a
lot
of
introductions
in
other
committees,
it's
march,
the
3rd
and
we've
just
now
opening
ours.
So
if
you
don't
know
somebody,
you
should
go,
introduce
yourself
to
them.
So
without
further
ado,
do
we
have
any
personal
orders
seeing
none?
We
are
going
to
get
started.
I
have
asked,
or
a
couple
of
members
have
asked
if
they
can
go
out
of
order
because
they
need
to
be
chairing
other
committees
or
presenting
bills
in
other
committees.
A
So
we
will
be
jumping
around
a
little
bit
today,
but
I'll
try
to
announce
those
as
as
we
as
we
get
to
them
so,
but
before
we
do
that
we're
gonna
answer
the
phone
and
call
the
roll.
A
A
C
You
I
got
some
anxious
people
next
door,
so
I
very
much
appreciate
it.
This
particular
bill.
I
got
from
our
our
da's
based
upon
a
case
that
actually
happened
in
our
community,
but
what
it
does
it.
It
broads
the
offense
of
indecent
exposure
when
committed
by
certain
sexual
acts
and
the
acts
are
described
within
the
context
of
the
bill
or
exposure
to
include
victims
who
are
14
years
of
age
or
younger.
The
current
law
is
13
years
of
age
of
younger.
A
particular
incident
happened
where
the
girls
were
14.
C
A
Thank
you,
chairman
white,
for
that
explanation.
The
bill.
Thank
you
for
bringing
the
legislation.
I
don't
have
anyone
on
the
list
for
questioning,
so
without
objection,
we're
ready
to
vote.
The
question's
been
called
all
those
in
favor
of
sending
house
bill
474
to
finance
ways
and
means
please
signify
by
saying
aye
that
was
opposed,
sir.
You
had
to
finance.
A
C
You,
mr
chairman
and
committee
members
house
bill
017,
prohibits
a
registered
sex
offender
whose
victim
was
a
minor
from
participating
in
activities
associated
with
halloween.
It
also
establishes
a
curfew
for
such
sexual
offenders
from
6
pm
on
october
31st
until
4am
on
november.
The
1st
and
I
have
dr
paul
grady
with
the
blount
county
sheriff's
office
that
brought
this
to
me,
would
like
to
testify
on
this.
A
A
We
are
out
of
session
now,
mr
grady,
if
you
could
please
come
forward,
you're
welcome
to
sit
at
any
of
these
chairs
or
you
can
stand
at
the
podium
when
you
sit
down,
though,
just
make
sure
your
microphone
is
on.
Please
state
your
name
for
the
record
and
then
share
with
whatever
share
with
this
committee.
Whatever
you'd
like
you'll,
have
three
minutes
for
that.
Thank
you.
D
D
We
have
a
great
tennessee
department,
corrections
officers.
I
work
very
close
with
our
districts
officers
and
every
year
they
do
what's
called
operation
blackout
where-
and
we
up
until
this
last
year
with
coven-
would
assist
them
every
year
in
doing
these
home
checks
to
make
sure,
as
a
rule
of
probation,
that
these
sex
offenders
are
in
home,
doors,
shut
windows,
shuttered
lights
off
no
decorations,
because
if
you're
on
state
probation
and
as
a
registered
sex
offender
as
a
rule
of
probation,
you
are
not
allowed
to
engage
in
any
halloween
activities.
D
D
You
know
the
old
latin
saying
is
non-omni
bono
mess
bonum,
what's
good
for
one
is
good
for
all
and
the
question
I
get
every
year
is:
every
year
my
phone
will
ring
in
my
office
citizens
asking:
why
is
it
just
sex
offenders
on
probation?
Why
are
other
sex
winners
allowed
to
and
I've
told
them?
I
never
have
a
good
answer
for
that
and
that
the
situation
is
this
if
your
victim
was
a
minor
which,
in
my
jurisdiction,
90
percent
of
my
sex
offenders,
their
victims
were
under
the
age
of
18..
D
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
putting
a
place
where
these
kids
can
go
out
safely
without
going
into
detail,
because
the
time
is
short,
I
actually
had
a
case
with
a
recidivist
sex
offender
who
was
an
exhibitionist
who
actually
did
some
things
standing
right
in
his
window,
I'll
keep
it
g-rated
for
the
sake
of
a
lot
in
the
live
feed
and
that
we
actually
arrested
him
on
halloween
day,
as
kids
were
walking
up
to
his
door.
D
When
I
knocked
the
door,
he
was
standing
in
the
very
window
where
he
had
committed
the
acts
against
his
neighbors
his
days
prior.
Did
we
know
if
he
was
going
to
do
anything?
We
don't
know,
but
I
can
tell
you
right
now.
The
odds
of
it
are
great
when
you
look
at
the
the
criminal
offenses
he's
committed
multiple
times
since
then,
with
the
same
type
of
situation
and
he's
actually
behind
bars.
D
Today,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
but
we
just
again
appeal
as
I'm,
I'm
I'm
one
cog
in
our
wheel
of
our
legislative
process,
I'm
a
law
enforcement
officer
and
I'm
looking
at
from
perspective
what
I
see
on
a
daily
basis
with
these
sex
offenders.
It's
a
public
safety
issue
for
us.
So
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
petition
on
on
behalf
of
this
piece
of
legislation
and
there's
any
questions,
I'm
happy
to
answer
them.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you,
mr
grady,
for
coming
down
your
great
resource
for
us
and
glad
to
have
you
with
us
today.
You
said
that
90
of
the
victims
in
your
jurisdiction
were
under
the
age
of
18..
E
D
C
E
Thank
you.
That's
terrible
legislation
such
as
this
would
this
help
possibly
protect
children,
especially
those
under
the
age
of
13
or
younger
in
the
future,
from
maybe
future
offenses.
Mr.
D
Greater
you
reckon
now,
I'm
sorry,
thank
you.
I
do
believe
it
would
every
year
even
not
just
do
I
get
contacts
from
citizens,
but
I
also
get
contacts
from
our
sex
offenders
clarifying
the
rules
and
those
who,
I
cannot
say,
are
prohibited.
I
have
to
tell
them
they're
allowed
to
engage
in
halloween
the
only
thing
they
cannot
do
currently
under
the
laws
under
40
39-15.
D
If
your
victim
was
a
minor,
you
cannot
be
dressed
in
any
type
of
costume
in
the
presence
of
a
minor,
but
where,
where
you
can
see
that
that
can
be
concerning
is
we.
We
have
offenders
who
maybe
weren't
a
victim.
Their
victim
wasn't
a
minor,
but
they
still
can
be
passing
out
candy
and
just
because
they
had
an
offended
minor,
yet
doesn't
mean
they
will
in
the
future.
I've
got
many
vic
many
sex
offenders
who
have
both
juvenile
and
adult
victims.
A
Members
any
other
question
for
our
witness.
I
do
have
one
and
you
may
not.
You
may
just
be
able
to
speak
for
your
own
jurisdiction,
but
one
one
question
that
jumped
out
at
me
during
your
testimony
is,
is
that
true
of
of
most
sex
offenders
generally
are
most
of
the
victims.
Minors,
or
is
that
just
happen
to
be
the
case
in
your
jurisdiction?
Well,.
D
I
I
don't
know
the
statewide
data,
but
I
can
tell
you
the
county
I
come
from.
Blount
county
has
around
130
000
residents,
so
it's
a
pretty
decent
sized
county
between
myself
and
and
probation
and
what
sex
offenders
are
currently
in
our
incarcerated
facility.
We
have
about
230
sex
offenders
in
our
jurisdiction,
so
I
would
say
that
if
you're
looking
at
it
from
a
medium-sized
county-
and
we
have
that
kind
of
data
that
would
probably
hold
consistent
across
the
board.
A
A
C
You,
mr
chairman,
yes,
sir,
as
of
today,
their
antique
slot
machines
are
illegal
to
own
in
the
state
of
tennessee.
What
this
legislation
I'm
proposing
will
do
it
will,
it
will
be
not.
It
will
not
be
an
offense
for
a
person
to
own
possess,
buy,
sell
an
antique
coin
machine.
If
the
machine,
antique
corn
machine
is
not
used
for
gambling
purposes,
a
person
selling
an
antique
corn
machine
shall
indicate
to
all
prospective
buyers
that
the
antique
corn
machine
is
not
to
be
used
for
gambling
purposes.
C
A
A
A
A
F
The
amendment
just
makes
a
technical
change
in
the
grammar
of
the.
I
think
you
read
it
in
sub
prior
so,
and
I
thought
it
was
actually
traveling
with
the
bill.
A
F
Chairman
and
committee,
we
are
currently
working
on
an
amendment
with
governor
lee
that
would
rewrite
this
bill
and
strengthen
it
to
be
one
of
the
toughest
in
the
country,
but
would
like
to
briefly
clarify
one
thing
for
the
record
after
there
was
a
bit
of
confusion.
Last
week
in
in
subcommittee,
I
reference
the
life
with
parole
option.
The
judge
gives
the
jury
that
states
25
full
years.
Under
current
code,
I
was
not
referencing.
F
The
actual
51
full
years
of
a
defendant
would
have
to
serve
before
the
eligibility
of
parole
if
convicted
and
sentenced
to
life
with
parole.
I
would
also
like
to
thank
you
chairman
for
clarifying
that
last
week
as
we
began
in
subcommittee,
so
so
with
that
and
the
we're
working
with
governor
lee
on
strengthening
this.
A
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
committee.
What
this
piece
of
legislation
does
is.
It
allows
a
defendant
to
be
sentenced
to
life
without
parole
if
found
guilty
of
attempted.
First
degree,
murder
of
a
first
responder
first
responders
include
law
enforcement
officers,
correctional
officers,
department
of
corrections,
employees,
probation
and
parole
officers,
emergency
medical
workers,
rescue
workers,
emergency
medical
technicians,
paramedics
or
firefighters,
who
are
engaged
in
the
performance
of
official
duties.
This
bill
does
not
automatically.
Let
me
stress
this
so
that
everybody
here
understands
this.
This
bill
does
not
automatically
give
the
defendant
life
without
parole.
F
F
Okay,
if
the
chairman
will
indulge-
and
let
me
speak
to
the
previous
bill-
is
that
okay,
the
first
bill
puts
it
in
code
as
two
possible
sentencing
guidelines,
capital
punishment
and
then
life
in
prison
without
parole.
All
this
piece
of
legislation
is
doing
is
is
adding
it
as
a
possibility.
A
F
D
H
Right
so
with
both
bills,
I
assume
that
the
first
one
and
this
one
are
in
essence
traveling
together
for
a
reason,
but
both
bills,
the
death
sentence
and
the
life
sentence
would
be
options
available.
Peter.
A
A
A
A
I
need
it
actually
everywhere.
The
word
firefighter
appears
not
just
on
line
five.
That
is
correct.
I
have
a
motion.
Can
I
get
a
second
a
second
all,
those
in
favor
of
making
that
grammatical
change,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
those
opposed
you
adopt.
The
amendment
goes
on
we're
now
ready
to
vote
on
house
bill.
512.
A
A
A
No
sir,
you
can
come
up.
You
can
either
stand
at
the
podium
if
you
wish,
or
you
can
stand
in
any
of
the
chairs
when
you
sit
down,
please
make
sure
that
your
microphone
is
on
state,
your
name
for
the
record
and
then
share
with
this
committee,
whatever
you'd
like,
and
you
have
three
minutes
for
that.
Testimony.
I
I
I
do
defend
cases
that
involve
the
death
penalty
and
I
also
serve
as
an
advisor
for
four
students
who
went
to
high
school
in
my
wife's
classroom
with
representative
lamar,
whose
mother
was
killed
in
the
line
of
duty
as
a
police
officer
in
memphis.
So
I
want
to
say
I
under
appreciate
what
the
representative
is
trying
to
do,
and
I
do
think
there's
a
legal
way
to
do
some
of
this.
But
I'd
like
to
caution
the
committee
a
bit
on
on
number
512
to
answer
the
question
about
the
distinction
in
tennessee.
I
Only
first-degree
murder
carries
a
life
sentence
and
a
potential
death
sentence
now
to
distinguish
a
regular
murder
from
a
more
serious
murder
worthy
of
the
death
penalty.
According
to
our
laws,
you
have
to
have
something
that
makes
it
worse
than
a
regular
murder.
We
call
that
an
aggravating
factor
and
a
prosecutor
has
the
right
to
file
the
capital
notice
to
give
it
make
it
an
aggravated.
First-Degree
murder
and
seek
the
death
penalty.
I
Only
a
jury
can
determine
whether
someone
should
receive
life
in
prison
or
death,
and
so
for
that
reason,
actually
only
a
jury
can
determine
whether
someone
should
receive
more
than
life
in
prison,
and
so
our
supreme
court
and
justice
scalia
has
written
quite
a
bit
about
the
fact
they
have
to
have
a
jury
be
able
to
consider
life
in
prison,
so
otherwise
it's
a
violation
of
the
right
to
a
jury
trial
by
your
peers.
I
So
as
to
rule
five
house
bill
511,
I
believe
it
could
be
legal
if
that
was
just
an
aggravating
factor.
Mr.
A
I
I
I
I
That's
been
an
arson,
there's
a
danger,
they
could
get
hurt,
and
so
it
creates
the
problem
that
if,
if
someone
does
get
hurt,
someone
who's
never
been
in
trouble
can
go
to
prison
automatically
for
life.
There
is
no
crime,
no
crime,
that
does
that
in
tennessee
other
than
actual
first
degree
murder,
our
most
serious
crime.
Thank.
A
J
Yes,
sir,
and
thank
you
for
wandering
off
onto
a
bill
that
we
were
not
on,
and
I
appreciate
you
testifying
on
this
one,
so
I
want
to
be
real
clear.
Your
testimony
here
today
is
first
responders
should
not
be
protected
under
this
bill
and
you're
opposed
to
increasing
the
penalty
when
somebody
tries
to
kill
them
not
at
all.
Mr
working,
you
recognize.
I
Thank
you
not
at
all.
There
could
be.
This
currently
allows
for
consecutive
sentencing.
It
could
be
its
own
separate
reason
for
consecutive
sentencing,
but
the
distinction
is:
it
takes
a
crime,
a
15-year
crime
and
in
many
instances,
things
like
evading
arrest,
which
are
only
a
one
to
two-year
crime
and
makes
him
an
automatic,
60-year
or
more
crime.
J
Leader
lamberth,
you
recognize
just
to
be
clear
again,
you're
against
the
bill
and
against
protecting
our
first
responders
when
somebody
tried
to
literally
kill
them.
Mr
working,
I
just
want
to
be
real
clear
what
your
testimony
is,
because
it
didn't
make
a
bit
of
sense
a
while
ago
we're
not
a
courtroom
we're
in
a
policy
initiative.
I
mean
we're
a
policy
committee
here.
Yes,
sir,
are
you
against
protecting
our
first
responders
and
against
increasing
the
penalty
when
somebody
tried
to
kill
them.
I
I
This
has
too
much
discretion
about
when
it
can
be
used.
It's
too
much
government
power
for
one
prosecutor
to
say
someone
who's
never
been
in
trouble.
Their
whole
life
with
2020
hindsight
did
something
that
hurt
a
police
officer
that
hurt
a
firefighter
is
not
wearing
a
mask
when
you're
being
treated
for
coronavirus,
attempted
murder,
there's
too
much
discretion.
A
J
Lambert
you're
recognized
it's
a
great
speech
with
all
due
respect
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
this
bill.
This
bill
deals
with
intentional
acts,
and
you
know
that
better
than
anybody
in
this
room,
what
that
includes.
You
may
want
to
conflate
this
with
some
other
issue,
but
we're
dealing
with
attempted
murder
trying
to
kill
a
first
responder
and
I'm
just
trying
to
get
a
direct
answer.
Yes
or
no,
I
mean.
Are
you
against
increasing
the
penalty
on
folks
that
try
to
kill
first
responders?
It
sounds.
I
Like
you
are,
but
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
it
out.
Mr
working
actually,
I
said
it
would
be
a
great
reason
for
for
adding
consecutive
sentencing,
but
you
know,
given
our
work
history
respectfully,
we
probably
have
a
different
interpretation
of
prosecutorial
discretion
and
in
in
this
case,
any
substantial
step.
I
There's
that's
that's
bound
to
be
abused
with
hindsight
showing
what
happens
in
something
and
and
with
respect,
I'm
not
against
giving
them
more
protection.
I
think
it
would
be
a
great
aggravating
factor.
I
think
it'd
be
a
great
grounds
for
consecutive
sentencing,
but
to
just
say
automatically
it
can
be
used
for
any
reason
by
any
substantial
step.
I
I
think
people
will
disagree
a
lot
about
what
a
substantial
step
is.
I
think
a
lot
of
people
on
january
6
would
disagree
that
they
took
a
stancial
step
for
an
officer
to
get
hurt
respectfully.
J
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
good
afternoon.
Sarah
thank
you
for
being
here.
I
Mr
working,
you
recognize.
Okay,
thank
you.
It
does.
I
agree
with
the
first
part
in
tennessee
juries:
don't
carry
out
a
sentence
other
than
in
a
death
penalty
scenario,
so
a
judge
would
not
have
a
sentencing
hearing
where
a
judge
currently
under
the
law.
First
degree.
Murder
was
just
actually
increased
by
the
legislature
about
two
years
ago
from
a
crime
that
followed
the
regular
status
of
30
35,
you
know,
and
up
to
a
career
offender
at
60
percent.
I
I
was
just
changed
by
the
legislature.
I
think
in
2018,
maybe
2017
too
often
being
a
hundred
percent
crime.
The
crime
is
usually
committed
also
with
a
firearm
which
carries
another
six
to
ten
years.
So
currently,
although
the
fiscal
note
says
it's
a
10
10
year
service
of
a
sentence
as
it
now
stands,
it's
more
like
28
to
35,
on
average
of
how
it
was
just
demanded
by
this
committee
and
a
judge
could
go
on
top
of
that
with
other
crimes
of
the
indictment
in
a
consecutive
fashion.
I
But
the
bill
says
there
is
no
discretion
automatic
life
in
prison
and
there
is
no
crime
that
carries
that
in
tennessee
other
than
actual
first-degree
murder.
So
it's
quite
a
departure
from
the
entire
rest
of
the
code
and
how
it's
existed
for
hundreds
of
years.
Even
people
got
branded
before
they
got
hung
for
stealing
a
horse
in
tennessee's
early
days.
H
A
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
the
the
reference
you
made
to
it
being
constitutionally
suspect.
Would
you
elaborate
on
that.
I
With
respect
mr
hardaway,
mr
chairman,
that's
a
much
stronger
argument
to
the
bill.
I'm
not
supposed
to
be
talking
about.
I
Yes,
my
argument.
H
A
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
for
my
clarification,
this
bill
512
will
only
it
would
apply
life
without
the
possibility
of
parole
if
you
attempt
for
attempted
first-degree
murder
only
for
certain
individuals.
So
if
someone
makes
an
attempt
for
murder
against
me,
they
won't
get
sentenced
with
life
without
parole,
but
if
they
do
it
in
the
process
of
a
shootout
with
the
police
or
something
they
get
it,
so
only
certain
individuals
are
protected,
but
not
myself.
I
Well,
there
is
a
class
of
more
protection
for
first
responders,
but
frankly
and
and
and
that
carries
its
own-
you
know
philosophical
arguments
about
whether
we're
all
equal
now,
but
but
aside
from
that,
what
I'm
really
speaking
against
is
the
fact
that
a
substantial
step.
I
K
I
A
Representative,
I'm
actually
going
to
jump
in
here.
I
just
want
to
make
sure,
because
we,
I
don't
think
we're
doing
it
on
purpose,
but
I
think
we've
accidentally
gone
down
a
road.
The
bill
does
say
a
person
convicted
of
attempted.
First-Degree
murder
may
be
sentenced
to
imprisonment
for
life
without
possibility
parole,
so
it
makes
it
an
option,
but
it
is
not
an
automatic
it's
not
a
mandatory
minimum
sentence.
I
I
could
mr
chairman,
and
and
and
to
pot
with
apologies
to
representative
hardway
as
it
exists
in
tennessee.
That
would
either
require
a
second
jury
trial
for
the
sentencing
phase
to
a
jury,
to
have
a
second
trial
for
a
jury
to
make
that
determination
and
there's.
Another
problem
legally,
is
that
in
tennessee
for
that
one
crime
like
first
degree
murder,
an
indigent
defense
attorney,
is
paid
fifty
dollars
an
hour,
but
there's
no
cap
for
this
crime.
I
The
cap
would
be
twenty
five
hundred
to
three
thousand
dollars
and
either
that's
gonna
have
to
change
or
there's
no
way
in
the
world.
We're
gonna
provide
people.
A
proper
defense
who
face
the
possibility
of
life
in
prison
and
a
lawyer
can
work
about
25
hours
on
their
case,
including
a
jury
trial
which
will
last
30
or
40
hours.
A
Thank
you.
Any
further
questions
represent
no.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
mr
working,
thank
you
very
much
for
being
here.
You
also
have
a
second
capacity
you're
a
criminal
attorney
defense
attorney,
but
you
also
serve
as
a
special
judge
in
the
municipal
and
general
sessions
courts
of
shelby
county.
Are
you
currently
still
serving
as
a
special
judge
on
occasion.
I
On
occasion,
it's
kind
of
like
being
a
substitute
teacher
and
you
you
don't
it's
not
a
substitute
teacher
with
enough
responsibility
to
decide
any
kind
of
case
that
we're
talking
about
here
today.
Frankly,.
G
I'm
I'm
I'm
directing
this
question
at
you,
but
it
may
be
for
the
sponsor.
I
just
want
to
go
back
to
an
example
that
you
use,
of
where
this
law
could
possibly
be
applied.
G
I
I
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I'm
and
I'm
trying
to
absorb
everything
that
that's
been
testified
about
today.
So
here's
here's
the
way.
I
see
it,
it's
basically
how
this
is
going
to
work.
I
think,
and
where
this
is
going
to
come
into
play
is
probably
when
the
judge
approves
and
reads
the
jury.
Instructions
to
the
jurors
judge
is
going
to
those
instructions
are
probably
going
to
say.
You
know
what,
if
you
find
x,
y
and
z,
then
this
person
is
a
first
responder
based
off
that
you
can
sentence
them
accordingly
to
this
law.
L
L
You
know
these
factors,
these
aggravating
factors
and
such
because
I
think
that
that's
going
to
be
a
question
for
the
jury
to
make
that
decision
during
the
sentencing
phase
of
the
trial.
After
because
they're
defined
as
a
fact
and
if
they
find
x,
y
and
z,
then
they
can
think
in
sentence
accordingly.
Not-
and
I
hope
I
haven't
gotten
a
soft
path,
but
I
think
this
is
how
this
is
going
to
play
out
from
you
know
from
a
practical
standpoint,
so
I'll
take
any
response
to
that
that
you
may
have
or.
I
I
do
thank
you
and
to
be
clear
on
the
front
end,
I'm
talking
about
512
here,
but
this
is
one
that
applies
to
both
511
and
512..
I
Now,
as
the
logist
and
according
to
case
in
2004
aprendi
versus
new
jersey,
it
was
a.
It
was
one
of
those
rare
opinions
where
everybody
comes
together
from
both
sides,
and
this
is
the
one
I
was
speaking
about.
Justice
scalia
wrote
a
concurring
opinion
about
a
jury
trial
and,
according
to
that
case,
anything
more
then
a
life
sentence
would
require
a
second
jury
trial.
I
I
I
guess
I
mean
it's
never
happened
before,
but
we
would
definitely
have
to
have
a
second
jury
trial
if
we're
following
the
constitution.
I
L
I
Yes
and
I
obviously
that
would
have
to
start
on
the
front
end
in
jury
selection.
I
think
everyone
would
know
that
the
the
prosecutor
seeking
life
without
parole
from
the
time
they
filed
that
on
the
indictment,
it
would
be
required
like
a
capital
notice,
and
then
there
would
have
to
be
a
whole
different
process
about
whether
the
juries
could
serve
on
the
two
consecutive
jury
trials,
whether
they
could
consider
all
the
options.
That
kind
of
stuff
he's
got
a
question.
I
Am
aprendi
versus
new
jersey
and
that
is
consistently
been
upheld
for
some
challenges
from
louisiana
texas,
other
states.
But
the
premise
is
clear
that
to
send
someone
to
more
than
life
in
prison,
which
is
the
maximum
that
judge
can
give
in
tennessee.
You
have
to
have
a
second
jury
trial.
So
to
go
back
to
your
original
one,
I'm
not
sure
that
the
judge
could
do
that.
Like
you're,
saying,
I
think
quite
the
opposite.
L
Chairman
farmer
yeah-
and
this
is
my
last
question
from
in
your
opinion-
is
there
anything
within
either
either
these
two
bills,
specifically
the
one
we're
on
now
that
would
preclude
that
second
trial
from
moving
forward.
Would
this
legislation
hinder
that
in
any
way.
L
Yes,
thank
you.
Would
this
legislation
either
these
two
bills
preclude
a
second
jury
trial
or
cause
it
to
would
it
would
it
would
either
either
either
pieces
of
legislation
stand
in
the
way
of
a
second
jury,
trial
and
you're
hypothetical?
They
require
two
based
off
this
united
states
supreme
court
opinion,
but
I
do
either
of
these
two
bills
or
the
bill.
We're
on.
Excuse
me
the
bill
we're
on.
Would
it
preclude
that
from
happening
here
in
tennessee?
Mr
working,
you
right
now.
I
A
A
Thank
you
very
much,
we'll
go
back
into
session.
I
appreciate
everyone's
indulgence.
I
know
we've
got
several
folks
here,
waiting
on
some
other
bills
that
are
coming
up
just
to
clarify
we
needed
to
take
that
recess.
A
Our
committee
legal
counsel
felt
like
that
there
was
some
legal
advice
being
given
by
a
witness
that
was
not
accurate
and
that
they
did
not
agree
with,
and
so
we
needed
to
take
some
time
to
hear
from
them.
We
have
done
that
now
and
so
thank
you
for
everyone's
indulgence.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
since
we're
still
back
in
session.
Probably
this
question
is
for
the
sponsor
and
leader
again
I
appreciate
you
bringing
this
legislation.
It's
my
understanding
that
the
primary
holding
in
u.s
versus
aprendi
said
that
criminal
sentences
cannot
be
enhanced
above
the
limits
provided
by
statute
unless
the
jury
finds
the
existence
of
specific
aggravating
factors,
giving
rise
to
enhancement
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt.
And
it's
my
understanding.
E
Is
that
your
understanding,
in
intent
with
this
legislation,
leader.
E
Thank
you,
and,
and
so
it's
the
the
indication
that
they
would
be
have
to
have
two
jury
trials
or
something
I
I
completely
disagree
with
that.
I
don't
think
that
would
be
necessary.
Is
that
your
understanding
from
legal
advice
for
the
committee
as
well.
A
You,
representative,
griffey
and
again
we
just
want
to
be
clear
about
our
legislative
intent
here.
Any
further
questions
for
the
sponsor
of
the
legislation.
A
F
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
committee,
and
I
apologize
for
the
time
consuming
of
these
bills,
so
appreciate
your
indulgence
in
in
presenting
these
these
bills.
This
particular.
F
You
this
piece
of
legislation
increases
the
penalty
of
obstructing
a
highway
or
other
passageway
to
a
class
e
felony
and
a
mandatory
fine
of
three
thousand
dollars
under
president
law.
A
violation
of
subs
subdivision
a1
under
39-17-307
is
a
class.
A
misdemeanor
and
a
violation
of
subdivision.
A2
is
a
class
c
misdemeanor.
F
Secondly,
it
creates
criminal
immunity
from
prosecution
for
any
drivers
who
are
exercising-
and
let
me
stress,
do
caution
who
unintentionally
cause
injury
or
death
to
a
person
illegally
obstructing
a
roadway
section.
Three
creates
a
class,
a
misdemeanor
for
a
person
who
throws
an
object
at
another,
with
the
intent
of
harming
the
other
person,
while
participating
in
a
riot
section.
4
creates
a
class
e
felony
for
a
person
who
throws
an
object
at
another
and
causes
bodily
injury
while
participating
in
a
riot
with
that.
A
G
I
have
a
few
questions.
One
is:
how
do
you,
how
do
we
determine
what's
a
riot
and
what's
a
protest.
F
I
will
defer.
A
A
Okay,
then
we
will
go
back
into
session
pending
representative
hardaway.
Do
you
are
you
wishing
to
be
recognized
for
a
question
for
legal?
Yes,.
H
H
Thank
you.
Is
there
guilt
by
association
that
I
guess
is
the
way
I'm
going
to
use
it
in
layman's
terms?
Can
you
be
standing
there?
H
A
part
of
it
don't
do
anything,
but
you
did
show
up
with
everyone
else.
Is
that
going
to
make
you
part
of
the
riot.
H
Yes,
sir,
is
that
right
can
you
be
tainted
with
the.
A
Riot
understood,
miss
fogerty.
B
Under
the
current
statute,
3917-302,
a
person
commits
an
offense
who
knowingly
participates
in
a
riot
and
then
participates
is
further
defined
as
including
joining
a
group
of
three
or
more
persons
who
riot,
aiding
or
abetting
a
riot
or
refusing
any
lawful
order
of
correctional
personnel
or
other
law
enforcement
officers.
During
the
course
of
a
riot.
A
So
I
was,
I
was
being
a
bit
funny
before,
but
it
was
because
we
actually
just
changed
that
and
my
memory
triggered
that
you
know
we're
very,
very
careful
to
make
sure
that
we
we
had
a
laser
focus
on
that
definition
of
writing,
so
that
we
didn't
pull
people
into
that
definition.
Who
didn't
need
to
be,
but
so
give
me
further
questions.
Yes,.
H
Sir,
but
the
the
two
elements
that
were
titan
was
it
the
intent
and
the
participation.
H
All
right,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
council.
M
I
believe
chairman
dixie
was
had
mentioned.
The
definition
of
a
protest
also.
A
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
So
my
question
is:
there's
a
definition
for
riot,
but
we
can't
classify
protesting
so
how
if
someone
gets
in
trouble
for
what
they
say
is
protesting,
how
do
you
classify
the
two
to
say
they
were
protesting
or
they
were
rioting
if
we
only
have
a
definition
of
one
and
or
what
I'm
trying
to
say,
could
someone
a
prosecutor
label
someone
as
a
writer
because
there's
a
definition,
but
they
don't
have
the
ability
to
label
them
on
the
protesting?
Because
there's
not
one.
A
And
I'll
I'll
jump
in
to
just
to
say
briefly
that
protesting
is
not
a
crime
so
that
you
wouldn't
have
a
prosecutor
trying
to
to
define
someone
as
a
protester
that
the
prosecutor
would
not
need
to
go
through
that
process
because
protesting
itself
is
not
a
crime
so
and
I'll.
Let
ms
swegerty
jump
in
as
well,
but
that's
why
we
have
a
definition
for
rioter
because
being
a
rioter
actually
participating
in
a
right
is
a
crime.
A
So
we
don't
need
a
definition
for
a
prosecutor
to
use
for
something:
that's
not
a
crime
but
miss
fogarty.
If
you
want
to
put
a
finer
point
on
that.
B
I
would
I
would
just
there
there
is
no
offense
of
protesting,
so
there
is
an
offense
of
rioting
and
there
are
certain
elements
to
that
offense.
So
if
the
facts
of
whatever
case
meet
those
elements,
then
it
would
be
within
the
prosecutor's
discretion
to
charge
someone
with
rioting,
but
there
is
no
offense
of
protesting.
It's
not
against
the
law
to
protest.
B
Section
two
of
the
bill
states
that
a
person
operating
a
motor
vehicle
who
is
exercising
do
care
and
unintentionally
causes
injury
or
death
to
another
person
who
is
violating
subsection
a
which
it
would
be.
The
rioting
subsection
is
immune
from
prosecution
for
the
injury
or
death.
That's
the
language
in
the
bill.
A
Thank
you,
representative
lamar,
and
I
think
that's
very
important,
because
we
certainly
want
to
be
intentional
here
that
we're
talking
about
a
person
in
that
section,
specifically
a
person
operating
a
motor
vehicle
who
is
exercising
due
care.
So
this
is
not
a
license
to
intentionally
run
someone
over
and-
and
I
want
to
be
be
clear
about
that
as
well.
But
I'm
thank
you
for
asking
the
question
any
other
questions
for
legal
services.
Seeing
none
we'll
go
back
representative
hardaway,
I'm
sorry.
I
saw
your
hand.
H
Yeah,
so
if
you're,
defending
yourself
or
you're,
trying
to
avoid
bodily
harm
and
you're
intentionally
driving
through
over
protesters,.
E
E
I
was
doing
this
and
that
those
are
questions
that
are
typically
left
for
the
investigators
and
the
jury
to
even
determine,
but
we
don't
prosecute
folks
for
engaging
in
innocent,
behavior
or
or
just
even
standing
and
watching,
but
you
have
to
do
some
sort
of
actor
engaged
in
some
sort
of
specific
gap
before
you're
going
to
be
prosecuted
technically
under
the
law.
So
and
those
decisions
are
up
to
the
jury
system
and
that's
what
that's
why
we
do
things:
criminal
justice
in
tennessee.
So
thank
you,
mr
chairman,.
G
Okay,
thank
you.
It's
I
just
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
these
these
laws
and
I
think
that
they're
they're
very
punitive
and
they
seem
like
their
retribution
for
someone.
That's
actually
just
trying
to
explain
and
these
bills
could
actually
hurt
some
of
our
young
people
they're,
making
them
felonies
and
under
this
bill,
throwing
a
water
bottle
a
water
bottle
at
a
police
officer.
Get
you
could
you
draw
a
felony
which
would
could
inhibit
you?
G
G
I
think
that's
to
the
extreme,
and
if
it
comes
to
the
immunity
or
running
over
protesters,
I
think
it's
going
to
be
hard
to
prove
the
intent
of
someone
hitting
someone.
That's
good.
It
could
be
a
it
could
be
a
a
protest
going
on
downtown
someone's
like
hey,
I
wanna,
I'm
gonna
go
down
there
and
see
what's
going
on
and
if
somebody
gets
in
my
way
and
now
I
have
the
right
to
run
them
over
and
I
think
that's
how
people
are
going
to
interpret
this
bill.
G
A
Thank
you,
representative
dixon.
I
want
to
clarify,
too,
on
the
record
that
throwing
a
water
bottle
has
not
made
a
felony
by
this
legislation.
Just
to
be
clear,
I
don't
want
to
get
too
fast
and
loose
with
the
facts,
but
it
would
be
throwing
an
object.
While
you
are
rioting
just
to
be
just
just
to
make
sure
that
we're
clear
about
that
representative
dixie,
I
can
get
you
back
on
the
list
if
you
like.
Oh.
G
Okay,
well,
and
as
we
used
in
the
example
before
that
representative
hardaway
said
that,
like
you
said,
you
get
a
little
riot
on
you
if
you're
standing
by
somebody
and
it,
and
it
could
happen
and
someone's
just
in
representative.
A
Dixie,
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt
you
there.
I
want
to
be
clear.
We
we
have
a
very,
very
tight
definition
of
writing
so
that
you
can't
do
that,
and
I
think
representative
that
asked
the
questioning
before
was
was
satisfied
from
legal,
that
we
have
in
fact
tightened
that
definition
a
fair
amount,
so
yeah.
Thank
you,
sir.
Next,
on
my
list,
I
have
representative
halsey
you're
recognized.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
just
wondered:
if
I'm
reading
this
right
obstructing
a
highway
or
a
waterway
or
sidewalk,
it's
not
that
the
demonstration
or
riot
is
not
tied
to
that
this.
This
could
be
anybody.
This
could
be
one
person
blocking
a
driveway
or
and
and
that
this
bill
applies
to
them.
Is
that
correct,
or
is
it
tied
to
a
group
of
people
in
a
demonstration
or
a
riot.
A
Leader
gant,
I
think
we
just
need
to
clarify
that
one
bit
trying
to
make
sure
we
get
this
clear
on
the
record.
I
believe,
as
your
bill
is
drafted,
obstructing
a
highway
would
not
be
tied
to
the
riot
itself.
F
Well,
I
I
guess
I
didn't
understand
his
question.
Okay,
would
you
re-clarify.
E
F
Me
just
read
what
what's
in
the
actual
legislation
increases
the
penalty
of
obstructing
a
highway
or
other
passageway
to
a
class
e
felony
and
a
mandatory
fine
of
3
000
under
present
law.
A
violation
of
subdivision
a1
under
39-17-3
is
a
class.
A
misdemeanor
and
a
violation
of
subdivision.
A2
is
a
class
c
misdemeanor.
F
E
A
B
You,
the
offense
of
obstructing
a
highway
or
a
passageway,
is
in
our
statutory
in
a
statute
as
a
person
commits
an
offense
who,
without
legal
privilege,
intentionally
knowingly
or
recklessly
obstructs
a
highway
street.
Sidewalk.
Railway
waterway,
elevator,
aisle
or
hallway
to
which
the
public
or
a
substantial
portion
of
the
public
has
access
or
any
other
place
used
for
the
passage
of
persons,
vehicles
or
conveyances.
B
Whether
the
obstruction
arises
from
the
person's
ax
alone
or
from
the
person's
ax
and
the
acts
of
others
or
disobeys.
A
reasonable
request,
or
order
to
move
issued
by
a
person
known
to
be
a
law
enforcement
officer,
a
firefighter
or
a
person
with
authority
to
control
the
use
of
the
premises
to
prevent
obstruction
of
a
highway
or
passageway,
or
to
maintain
public
safety.
By
disbursing
those
gathered
in
dangerous
proximity
to
a
fire.
A
riot
or
other
hazard.
A
And
so
I
want
to
clarify
there
too.
We,
I
know
I'm
sure
the
representative
was
just
given
an
example,
but
the
example
of
a
driveway
was
used.
That
would
not
be
included
in
that
definition
to
be
clear,
any
other
questions
for
legal
services
while
we're
at
a
session
seeing
none
representative
hulsey
did
you
have
any
further
questions
chairman
holzer.
Thank
you,
sir.
Next,
on
my
list
I
have
representative
lamar
representative
lamar
you're
recognized.
K
F
K
Lamar,
thank
you
so,
for
example,
what
if
there
are
there's
a
protest
outside
the
capitol
and
agitators
come
and
startups
and
stuff
and
people
start
fighting
in
the
streets
or
something,
and
particularly
in
front
of
the
garage
with
this
bill,
allow
someone
who's
trying
to
get
home
to
be
able
to
be
immune
if
they
hit
someone
coming
out.
F
A
Well,
yeah,
certainly
your
bill
states
that
they
are
exercising
due
to
caution.
That's
right!
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Representative.
Lamar
see
no
other
questions,
we're
ready
to
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
sending
house
bill
513
to
finance,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
those
opposed,
sir.
You
head
to
finance.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
H
Thank
you,
sir,
and
I'm
going
to
just
give
a
brief
description
of
the
bill
as
amended,
and
then,
mr
chairman,
we
have
three
witnesses
who
are
going
to
give
testimony.
Well,
I
guess
the
quickest
way
mr
chairman
would
be
to
have
them
come
up
while
I'm
going
through
this.
A
H
Yes,
sir,
that's
why
I'm
trying
to
be
efficient
with
our
time?
The
bill
adds
that
a
person
commits
a
classy
felony
of
abuse
of
a
corpse.
If
the
person
engages
in
sexual
contact
with
the
corpse
president
law
defines
sexual
contact
as
including
the
intentional
touching
of
the
victims,
the
defendants
or
any
others,
other
persons
intimate
parts
or
the
intentional
touching
of
the
clothing
covering
the
immediate
area
of
the
victims,
the
defendants
or
any
other
person's
intimate
parts.
H
If
that
touching
can
be
construed
as
being
for
sexual
arousal
or
gratification,
that's
the
sexual
abuse
of
a
corpse
is
added
to
the
list
of
sexual
offenses,
for
which
an
individual
must
register
as
a
sex
offender.
Sexual
offender.
H
Mr
chairman,
with
that
description,
I'm
going
to
ask
that
you
recognize
we
actually
have
three
who
have
agreed
to
come
today
to
share
the
impact
of
this
bill
on
their
lives,
and
the
genesis
of
this
bill
is
actually
from
a
tragic
situation
that
they
are
personally
involved
in.
A
Thank
you,
representative
hardaway
members.
Without
objection
will
go
out
of
session.
We
are
now
out
of
session
and
I'd
like
to
take
just
a
brief
moment,
mr
parham,
mrs
parham,
and
also
mr
parham
in
the
back.
I
remember
meeting
with
you
last
year
around
about
this
exact
same
time.
It
was
just
before.
Unfortunately,
we
were
all
shut
down
because
of
the
covet
19
pandemic.
So
I
want
to
thank
you
first
of
all
for
making
the
long
journey
here.
A
A
Thank
you
for
advocating
on
behalf
of
your
late
daughter
and
please
share
with
this
committee,
whatever
you'd
like,
and
if
you
wouldn't
mind
before
you
begin
speaking,
make
sure
that
your
microphone
is
turned
on
and
you'll
know
that
when
there's
a
red
light,
that's
illuminated
and
there's
a
button
that
looks
like
a
voice
talking
or
a
mouth
talking
with
some
waves
coming
out
of
it
and
if
you
could
just
state
your
name
for
the
record
so
that
we
know
who's
speaking
and
then
share
with
this
committee.
Whatever
you'd
like.
Thank
you.
N
Thank
you
chairman.
Can
you
hear
me
do
I
need
to
cover.
O
And
I'm
james
parham,
I'm
april's
father
what
I'd
like
to
say
here
about
this
bill,
our
daughter.
You
know
it's
going
on
three
years
now
when
she
passed
a
illness
here
in
memphis
and
after
she
passed
right
in
the
hospital
there.
It
was
after
they
took
her
down
to
the
mall.
O
So
what
we're
wanting
to
do
here
today
is
this
guy's
walking
around
today
he's
it
was
no
consequences,
because
there
was
no
law
to
do
anything
about
it,
so
we
are
trying
to
get
something
done.
So
if
something
like
this
happens
to
anybody
else,
your
daughter's
sisters
or
something
I
mean
he
he
he
this
guy's,
not
even
a
registered
sex
offender
and-
and
I
just
don't
understand.
O
O
O
N
April
she
was
already
had
already
passed,
but
for
the
hospital
to
call
and
tell
you
that
one
of
your
family
members
have
been
assaulted
and
I
didn't
understand
who,
because
everybody
was
there-
and
she
asked
me-
was
it
a
parent
of
april
for
him
and
that
the
detective
would
be
calling
us
and
it
threw
me
for
a
loop.
I
had
just
left
her
and
she
was
such
a
beautiful
girl
and
she
was
given
her
organs
to
be
donated
and
when
this
man
did
this,
that
was
her
last
wish.
N
She
couldn't
do
it
because,
when
the
examiner
was
coming
to
get
her
eyes
her
skin
and
bone,
they
found
a
security
guard
up
on
top
of
her
having
sex
with
her
and
it.
You
know,
I
won't
say
it
was
embarrassing.
It
was
just
just
awful
just
to
know
that
she
was
put
through
that
and
she's
in
heaven
laughing
at
him,
but
for
us,
it's
so
agonizing,
and
I
just
asked
that
y'all
can
pass
this
bill.
N
It
won't
it.
You
know
it
won't
affect
him,
but
it
will
affect
the
next
person
that
this
man
or
anyone
else
do
this
to
and
just
to
be
associated.
You
know
with
somebody
doing
that
and
then
he
out
walking
around
and
everything
it
just
really
breaks
my
heart.
So
if
you
could
pass
this
bill,
it
would
put
me
my
mind,
my
soul,
at
peace,
to
make
this
be
a
pass
and
and
it
will
be
april's
legacy
and-
and
I
just
thank
you.
A
Thank
you
ma'am.
Thank
you
both
and
thank
you
all
three
for
being
here,
sir.
Would
you,
like
anything
you'd
like
to
share
with
the
committee?
Okay,
all
right?
Thank
you
again.
I
want
to
say
I
remember
I
remember
this
being
one
of
the
last
conversations
we
had
before.
We
all
had
to
go
home
for
the
stay-at-home
order
and
I
have
thought
about
your
family
in
the
last
year.
I
have
prayed
for
your
family
in
the
last
year
and
I
want
to
admire
your
courage
for
coming
here
and
relaying
the
story
to
us.
A
You
didn't
have
to
do
that,
but
but
but
I
think
it
is
an
honor
to
your
daughter
and
her
memory
and
her
legacy
so.
M
A
You
for
being
here
today,
and
I
do
have
vice
chairman
sexton
on
the
list
vice
chairman
you're,
recognized.
P
Thank
you
chairman.
I
would
just
like
to
say
to
the
parents,
if
I
hope
that
I'm
saying
your
last
name
right,
there's
not
many
times
in
life
that
we're
able
to
really
feel
another
person's
pain
or
their
loss.
We
grieve
or
we
hurt
for
them.
But
I
just
want
you
to
know
that
your
testimony
is
real,
and
I
really-
and
I
think
I
can
speak
for
this
community-
this
committee-
that
you've
made
up
you've
made
me
hurt
for
your
pain,
and
I
know
that
you
loved
your
daughter,
and
this
shouldn't
happen
to
anyone.
P
I'm
sorry
that
it
happened
to
you,
but
I'm
grateful
that
you're
willing
to
come
forward
and
share
this.
It
has
to
be
painful,
but
I'm
grateful
that
you
did
that
because
it
needs
awareness
needs
to
be
brought
to
this
and
for
a
lack
of
a
better
term.
I
just
have
a
great
feeling
for
what
you're
going
through.
I
think
that
your
testimony
has
done
that
to
me.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
vice
chairman,
any
other
questions
for
the
parhams
while
we're
at
a
session.
Seeing
none.
Thank
you
again
for
being
here
today.
We
we
thank
you
so
much
we're.
Now
back
in
session
members,
we
are
back
on
house
bill
12
as
amended
any
questions
for
the
sponsor
of
the
bill
representative
beck,
you're,
recognized.
A
Bill
question
has
been
called
on
the
bill
without
objection,
we're
ready
to
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
sending
house
bill
12
as
amended
to
calendar
and
rules,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
those
opposed,
sir,
your
bill
heads
to
calendar
and
rules.
Thank
you
again
very
much
for
being
here
tonight.
Save
travels
back
to
west
tennessee.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
M
Thank
you,
chairman
members
of
committee.
This
bill,
if
enacted,
will
establish
the
good
samaritan.
Sentencing
has
enhancement
act
president.
We
have
sentencing
enhancements
for
people
that
injure
well,
kill
first
responders,
those
working
in
the
judiciary,
rescue
workers,
medical
workers,
medical
technicians,
paramedics,
firefighters
and
those
who
are
engaged
in
the
professional
duty.
M
This
enhancement
gives
cover
for
our
citizens,
who
are
not
paid
to
perform
acts
of
heroism
and
who
did
not
wake
up
on
any
given
day
and
know
that
they
were
going
to
work
to
put
their
lives
in
dangers,
but
yet
acted
to
defend
their
fellow
citizens
of
this
state.
M
So
basically,
we
have
citizen
enhancements
for
many
things
in
this
in
this
list,
there's
about
18
of
them,
some
of
them,
if
you're
under
the
age
of
12,
if
you're
over
70,
if
the
act
is
performed
on
a
person
random
also
if
the
act
is
performed
against
a
politician
or
elected
official,
a
former
member
of
the
judiciary
and
there's
a
list
of
about
eight
ten
of
these
offenses,
but
basically
we've
we've
added
to
the
list
of
statutory
agri-voting
circumstances.
M
Many
things-
and
this
just
covers
those
good
samaritans
who
are
not
compensated
to
protect
others
with
that
I'll.
Take
any
questions.
A
Thank
you
vice
chairman
ogles,
any
questions
for
the
sponsor
the
legislation,
seeing
no
more
ready
to
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
sending
house
bill
47
to
calendar
and
rules.
Please
signify
by
saying
aye.
I
was
opposed,
sir.
You
had
the
calendar
and
rules
members
that
brings
us
to
item
number
six
house
bill
50,
but
also
by
vice
chairman
ogles,
sir.
You
have
a
motion
and
a
second.
I
also
see
an
amendment
coded
three
seven,
two
one,
sir.
You
have
a
motion
and
a
second
on
that
amendment.
It
does
not
make
the
bill.
M
Yes,
thank
you
chairman
the
amen.
The
amendment
changes
some
wording
in
the
in
the
definition
we
said:
police
officer,
standards
and
training.
Commission,
it's
actually
the
peace
officer,
standard
and
training
commission,
so
it
typica
it
fixed
a
error
in
that
any.
A
M
Thank
you,
chairman
members
of
committee,
I
guess
year
before
laster
and
summer
study,
the
representative
from
shelby
county
had
a
bill
before
us
that
we
were
studying
and
in
that
through
testimony,
we
discovered
that,
for
some
reason,
the
state
of
tennessee
rape
was
not
considered
serious
bodily
injury.
M
So
when
looking
at
the
statute
for
self-defense
and
when
a
person
defends
of
themselves
or
another
and
uses
deadly
force,
the
definition
and
how
that
was
listed
was
problematic.
M
So
with
that
we
established
this
bill
establishes
a
new
subsection
under
3911
106
a
we
amend
that
by
adding
the
subsection
graves
sexual
abuse
and
that's
rape,
aggravated
rape,
rape
of
a
child,
an
aggravated
wreck
of
a
child,
so
any
of
those
offenses
a
person
would
be
authorized
to
use
deadly
force
to
defend
themselves
or
defend
another
person.
A
C
M
Bless
your
opals,
you
reckon
chairman,
if
you
may,
they
intended
this
bill
is
for
any
person
that
deems
a
rape
is
occurring
aggravated
rape
is
occurring,
rape
of
a
child
or
aggravated
rape
of
occur.
A
child
is
occurring
that
they
would
be
given
calls
to
to
defend
themself
or
defend
another
person
in
that
circumstance.
So
I
I
hate
to
muddy
the
waters,
but
if,
if
a
parent
were
to
walk
in
and
see
that
that
that
would
definitely.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chairman
hawk.
Thank
you
for
the
question
I'll
next
on
my
list,
I
have
representative
lamar
you're
recognized.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
share
the
same
sentiments
as
representative
hawk.
I'm
definitely
privileged
to
serve
here
on
this
committee
with
everyone,
but
I'm
very
thankfully
appreciative
of
you
for
bringing
this
legislation.
I'm
thankful
that
through
those
summer
studies,
we
were
able
to
find
this
hole
in
the
wall
and
you've
taken
on
a
challenge
to
fix
this.
So
I'm
definitely
in
support
of
your
bill
and
hopefully,
if,
with
your
permission,
I
would
love
to
sign
on.
A
A
P
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
committee
I'll,
try
to
make
this
quick
for
you
all.
This
is
my
anti-drag
racing
bill.
What
it
essentially
does
is
it
raises
the
penalty
for
organized
street
racing
from
a
class
b
misdemeanor
to
a
class,
a
misdemeanor,
and
it
would
allow
the
d.a
to
prosecute
those
cases
a
little
bit
more
aggressively
they're,
a
problem
where
I
live,
but
I
think
they're
also
a
problem
in
every
city
in
the
state
and
any
even
some
of
the
rural
areas.
So
I
welcome
any
questions.
Y'all
have
and
members.
A
J
J
Chairman,
I
I
think
representative
gillespie
may
have
remembered
our
last
encounter
in
sub.
It
must
have
left
some
sort
of
an
impression.
I
just
have
a
question.
This
is
more
of
a
procedural
thing
and
I'm
sure
you're
well
versed
in
masons
and
in
the
house
rules.
Would
you
have
any
objection
if
we
moved
us
to
the
first
calendar
of
2023,
it's
a
very
important
bill
and
I
think
it
might
be
appropriate
to
take
up
at
that
time.
Would
that
be
a
problem
or.
J
J
You
do
a
great
job,
and
I
know
this
is
an
issue
that
is
extremely
serious
and
I'm
I'm
joking
with
you
a
little
bit
because
it
is
your
first
bill,
but
you've
done
a
great
job
of
presenting
this
and
drag
racing
is
a
very
serious
offense
and
I'm
glad
that
you're
addressing
this
very
early
in
your
tenure
here
in
service,
your
community.
Thank
you.
A
A
J
I
think
mr
chairman
and
the
members
of
this
committee
have
seen
this
bill
before
we
passed
it
last
year,
but
this
bill
is
named
after
spencer,
bristol
he
was
performing
his
duties
as
a
hendersonville
police
department
officer
and
was
chasing
a
fleeing
felon
when
he
was
killed,
and
this
would
raise
the
penalty
for
evading
arrest
when
a
law
enforcement
officer
is
either
seriously
injured.
It
would
increase
the
penalty
some
if
serious
injury
results
directly
from
that
evading
arrest
or
if
death
results
directly
from
the
rest
from
the
evading
arrest.
J
It
would
result
in
an
a
felony
being
the
criminal
exposure
that
the
person
would
face.
Obviously
they
would
be
innocent
to
approving
guilty
avail
of
himself
the
full
criminal
justice
system,
but
it
would
make
the
maximum
penalty
here
in
a
felony,
I
believe,
15
to
25
years.
So
not
the
felonies,
not
the
felony
murder.
We've
talked
about
earlier
today,
but
at
least
an
increase
from
the
two
to
four
years
at
30
that
the
penalty
is
right.
J
Now
the
person
that
actually
committed
this
crime
and
literally
killed
officer
bristol
would
serve
about
six
months
so
and
that's
just
too
low
a
penalty
when
you've
taken
someone
else's
life.
A
Members
you've
heard
the
explanation
of
the
bill,
any
questions
for
the
sponsor,
seeing
none
we're
ready
to
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
sending
house
bill
55
to
finance
ways
and
means
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
those
opposed,
sir.
You
had
to
finance
thank
mr
chairman
membership
committee.
Thank
you,
leader,
lamberth
members.
That
concludes
our
calendar
today.
I
want
to
thank
everyone
for
a
very
productive
first
meeting.
Again,
I'm
sorry.
It
took
us
until
march
the
third
to
get
started,
but
now
that
we
have
absolutely
gotten
started
with
a
vengeance.