Judiciary Committee- House

Share workers recognize senator Ballenger and representing Pilkington. You're recognized to present your bill. Thank you chairwoman Dalby can I ask that Matt Herriman of the NRA if your as well yes Mister chairman if you're in the audience. here out back. Not serve Mr hearing in your. Herman you're recognized to come forward and sit at the table. When you get to the table please identify yourself for the record. Thank you madam chairman of Matt Harmon state director for the national rifle association. Pilkington you're recognized thank you Carol Dalby four be on opening remarks I would just like to say I really appreciate this committees Respect to may I know this is been a controversial issue and I appreciate the way all members from both parties have been very respectful of one another and I think that's something great. I come before the committee today to present Senate bill twenty four the bill to remove Arkansas's duty to retreat calmly NO one in my state stand your ground. For last two years myself and Senator Ballenger works great piece of legislation that would bring Arkansas self defense laws in line with over thirty other states. We work with the Arkansas prosecutors Association share sensation and chief of police. To create a bill that we feel adequately gives Arkansas is the ability to defend themselves and at the same time takes a consideration law enforcement's concerns However since two thousand nineteen this legislation has been dogged by misrepresentation and analyze however what is clear is a majority of voters in Arkansas see through this and want this piece of legislation for instance in the twenty twenty election many of my colleagues were attacked for supporting stand your ground legislation yet many of them when their own race well the lone Republican who voted against it your ground legislation went on to lose a seat voters in Arkansas want this bill before we vote on this he's a legend legislation and fill our promise to the voters let me explain what's bill is what it's not a party called the killer will build a license to kill and by even some the legalization of murder in the state of Arkansas I would say this windows is suppose you have to lie it's because the truth is not on their side. So what is the truth in regard to stand your ground the truth is we're moving the needle slightly in Arkansas to allow someone to defend themselves that they find their they they're in a dangerous situation and they have to use lethal force to survive however person defending himself and others must follow certain criteria. Having the right to be present when encounters coming. Not currently committing any crimes and not being the aggressor in that situation these parameters are what we believe and others believe are necessary and easy for one to fall to know when they have a right to stand your ground. However I'd like to address some of the egregious claims that have been made by the opposition to this bill. Some of claims that this will cause an increase in African American deaths and an increase in crime. Also the first increase in crime. Represent bill can get could you move a little closer to the microphone I think yes ma'am there you go I think I had some members saying they were having a little hard time hearing you thank you I'm so sorry shall remove my mass. If the people around you feel comfortable you're far enough from a committee that I will need to ask the people around you. Thank you general. In say the current lab stand your ground we've seen a decrease in overall crime for the past ten years according to the FBI crime report in fact Florida which is when the strong a stand your ground laws in the country saw a drop of thirty five percent from two thousand five two thousand fifteen Arkansas on the other hand as a violent crime rate of forty seven percent higher than the national average the data shows that the reason this legislation instead for fifteen years in the state in other states because they see the benefit and it's saying that the sky is falling predictions of the past turned out not to be true. Doesn't interesting is what I've heard multiple times then increase an African American deaths is actually pretty interesting because when the data doesn't Jensen some states we do see a slight increase in justifiable homicide it's actually the largest group is white males over the age of forty five. There's no evidence suggests that minorities will be murdered in mass because this legislation was actually interesting though to is this legislation keeps African American community safer according to data in the commission on civil rights and stand your ground in twenty twenty report seventy six percent of time an African American was killed to stand your ground situation the defender themselves were African American. Additionally one of the commission on civil rights senior ground report twenty twenty black and Hispanics were actually able to use the same ground events to prevent unlawful prosecution about seventy percent of African Americans to raise the stand your ground and we're not convicted compared to only sixty two percent of whites hopefully this bill will actually help decrease unjust imprisonment of African Americans with that I'll turn it over to senator Ballenger for additional remarks. Yes okay sorry I really don't have anything to add to that I appreciate you all taken in consideration for the most part you guys have have looked at and considered and thought about this bill the policy in the the legislation itself and I'm just here to help answer any questions if I can be at thank you I can't assistance committee in anyway. I'll I'll I'll just be very brief because I noticed a lot of folks that would like to to speak up thank you madam chairman and and committee today for your time again my name is Matt Herriman and the state director for the national rifle association. On behalf of tens of thousands of NRA members across the state an asset to vote yes on Senate bill twenty four. Thank you represented Bill Clinton and senator Ballenger for your work on this important piece of legislation. Roger one of the members again going to be brief and primarily to Bach just a couple of myth that that you'll hear throughout testimony today that which you've probably already heard of the first is that this is some radical policy that is going to turn Arkansas into the wild wild west. The second is that stand your ground is going to give people a license to murder. These two arguments could not be further from the truth. First of all this is not a new or uncommon policy standard ground or no duty to retreat laws are the norm across this nation with at least thirty four states not requiring a duty to retreat by statute or case law. Ohio just joined this group of just a few weeks ago. Secondly Senate bill twenty four does not encourage violence or give anyone a license to murder in reality this is a very narrow concept that simply protects victims of violent crime that choose to defend themselves before attempting to flee. Besides the single element of being required to run before you defend yourself. Use of force justification in self defense scenarios does not change. Forced must still be proportional to the threat. In closing this measure is this is a common sense measure that protects victims and is already the law in most of this country I hope Arkansas will be the next to join thank you madam chairwoman in committee I ask for favorable passage. Members are there any questions please be sure to pressure button at this time all recognized Representative Clowney for question. Thank you madam chair thank you center Ballenger and represent a Pilkington. I want to start my comments by and my question by making a quick comment which is just to correct something that you said the beginning which is that voters clearly want stand your ground I don't think the data is as clear as that for instance the Arkansas pull from twenty twenty I'm sure that over fifty percent of Arkansas voters want no change in our gun laws so I do think we need to be careful about about making broad generalizations like that and so with that in mind my question for you is I'm I didn't hear the need for this law in your presentation I heard a lot about what it won't do but what will it do that current Arkansas law it doesn't do and in particular who wants those changes made I'm thinking about law enforcement and prosecutors defense attorneys those kinds of folks thanks. Thank you represent a claim for that question Firstly comment about the Arkansas pull I think many Arkansans are like me two thousand and eighteen I assume that we had stand your ground you know we're considered a red state you know we've always been. A pro gun and as a shock to find a we weren't what happened was actually a constituent call me and say that he had a situation when she had to retreat and so you know you say there's no need for this I think there's definitely need for this if you live in rural areas I mean some of us on the luxury of living in more urban areas like that bill which I can understand may feel a little different but you know just recently south where I live in Knoxville Arkansas we've had to officer involved shooting so I mean as my pregnant wife goes jogging in the morning I would hope that she's ability to defend herself she finds herself on the situation and she doesn't have to worry about the law coming after her because she decided to defend herself and her unborn child thank you. You're recognized for follow up thank you madam chair I appreciate that that that you see the need for this I guess my question more specifically was have you heard from law enforcement that there is a need for this legislation. Bob Johnson yes you. So the answer is is no in fact you know starkly they have a they've been opposed to this legislation simply because it it makes it right now they are empowered to make the choice right just to just to decide whether to prosecute or not prosecute and so from their standpoint It it made it more difficult however that's why we spend so much time working with them the reason why they're neutral on this bill is because they they can work with that it's not going to hinder them from doing their their job and is a week we really struck a really really St balance something that that protects our citizens rights but also thanks willing to the work eight and the reason why I am last year I had a prosecutor who came spoke against the the legislation he said I don't even take into account whether a person could retreat or not when he prosecute and in the reason why he does that is that the best policy the best policy is just like castle doctrine if you're in your home you don't have a duty to retreat currently in Arkansas if you're outside your home you should carry the same rights with you right and so most prosecuted get that this policy was prosecutors are not going to to prosecute not even ask the question whether you could retreat or not okay was the use of four threes reasonable was a proportional to the to the threat and that's what they'll do M. and that's what they'll do after this legislation is passed so for the most part we won't see any change after this legislation passed now what we'll do is if there is a prosecutor who is either the fair it's got you know somebody who's not politically well connected maybe kill somebody who is politically well connected or well liked under the law or whatever and and it may be the politically most expedient thing to do would be to prosecute it'll make it a little harder for them to do that on the situation whether asking question whether to retreat and I don't expect that to happen very much of it was prosecutor great people they're smart they're not gonna commit that error and I'm going to be the intensely trying to put somebody in jail who doesn't doesn't require but what this does not mean we as legislators with our job to me. Sure the best policies put into the code. His job was prosecuting consistent with the law I think that by doing this we're going to we're going to have a code section is more consistent to the way most prosecute prosecute. Representa calling you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair. Arkansas self defense law with the duty to retreat has been on the books for over fifty years and and there's no evidence that it hasn't worked pretty perfectly. So my question to you guys is do you trust police and prosecutors to be able to differentiate between a victim using our current self defense law on a criminal using deadly physical force. I would say currently the Santa do trust them but I think we always need a plan hope for the best plan for the worst. You know there's a reason why you're not seeing law enforcement all across the country these thirty four states currently working to repeal this legislation because they're able to work with them my brother is a law enforcement officer in Georgia I talked extensively about this legislation and how it affects law enforcement how they deal with it how they deal situations which stand your ground use you know they're able to to make it work and and are there's no effort to try to repeal and state like Georgia so what you know to me I and I don't see how this is somehow because I think your questions in you is that this is somehow we're attacking law enforcement that when addressed we definitely do we wanna make sure that when people find so science education they know that the law has their back. Follow up please you're recognized for a follow up thank you madam chair also so with that answer to me if you trust police and prosecutors and judges and citizens that are serve on juries and with the current self to law defense law for we've had no issues in any one or no evidence anyone can bring up then is there really no need to pass this law. Yes. So. We are a state a nation of the rule of law right so what we could do we could just throw out the code because together and say you know let's try the elect prosecutors and judges to just make sure justice is carried out but they wouldn't support that is needed with any of us like we understand that it's our job the shape the law on such a way it is not not because of us we don't we're not all that important is because we each of us each of you represent thirty thousand people I represent ninety thousand people we we we are carrying their boards voice in their their choice in here to help shape the laws under in which they live and so the the reason why prosecutors are are are okay with this bill is because it's not something that is going to be a big sea change I mean it really all the excitement about this one where another is a is is truly misplaced all we're doing is shaping the code consistent with what probably happened ninety nine point nine percent of the time and frankly it's just making the policy which which hopefully we do them through this process we get together Is open fire and we we put together some some really good bill that sometimes a lot exactly look like the way that we started but but the idea that all of us will will share important representation for people who put forth the best policy as I trust them to carry out the best possible frankly it's not their job to decide what the law is it's their job to to prosecute the law and most of them are not even take into account there the date the person had a duty to retreat because that's just not reasonable they're focusing on reasonable and so what we're doing is we're making of a law that is consistent with what most of them are doing and that's why support me. To. To some extent. It's like the most important thing right is that we're out there helping because the thing the last word we're going is we're helping the code to be conformed in state to what we think is the best policy it isn't necessarily that were out there forcing things to change it so we're making lasting effects over years to make aware where it it conforms to what is best that's why that's why this is important is not to force prosecutors do you think the permitted today is the backup in a power prosecutors basically to do what they're doing today. Representative you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and I want to say on this idea of and I believe Senator Ballinger use the term quote nefarious prosecutors do we have the evidence we're talking about a prosecutor who is prosecuting someone wrongly for using self defense under the current law do we have concrete examples of the situation and which that is happening. So let me give you the best answer that I can that is a concrete example of why we need this legislation. Not necessarily a concrete example of what is carried out not sure the story before and I'm happy to share it again the mom said she'd come down and testify but I don't know that's really all that fruitful but had a goal two years ago from a law. And what happens to board right in a car. And those boys start fighting the the boys actually had a huge criminal record they both kind of got a little bit trouble nothing significant but they're fighting they're fighting over money passenger pulls out a nice and goes to attack the driver driver slams on the brake runs clean car passenger catches the the the driver an actual strike the driving cuts and driver and passenger wrestle and the driver was able to get the knife away from the away from the passenger he actually strikes and cuts the the the passenger and he runs to the car he's going to try to get away he's retreating actually and then the the passenger kitchens and grabs he turned around and stabbed him right in the chest. And killed. Well the the driver wasn't very politically connected he was a favored in that system now let me say this I said this every time of the day before to make sure seat again I'm taking I'm almost perfect right so this is not this is you know these these are the facts at the moment season so I'm not even I don't want to dispense a prosecutor I names in the prosecutor did a bad job I'm saying that because the fact that there's this loophole or this this ambiguous language in the bill in her mind. That's what happened he he of course said he was practicing self defense the prosecutor said you have the mind you could have retreated. Thank you I would say no I mean he he he was caught right the guy had a hold of him he couldn't that you know could ever treat and clean thank the prosecutor said you have a ninety could ever treated. Judge jury agreed and got convicted second remark now the kid is this struggling basically courting mom Debbie and the reason why is you can get a job in these convicted murders you know you went to prison for a few years got out but you know what my point is not apple like I said I believe the prosecutors mostly due to good job the point is not the fact that that they are doing a bad job or even that that situation prosecutor did a bad job the truth is the law situated where he could. So we have a easy solution most of us are very supportive of the castle doctrine that policy the center of your home you don't have a duty to retreat well why wouldn't we want to carry that to any other place that you're legally allowed to be why would the victim have to run away and and I think that our our nature very nature tells us they shouldn't just as would require that and I think that's probably why they don't get prosecuted. And so all this does is the shape of the Senate minority woman time six one accordance to what the justices. Follow up please manager you're recognized for a follow up thank you and and I I heard that story when you when you told it in Senate Judiciary and and I think you know respectfully both of us understand what double hearsay is and and so you know that the weight that that that type of of anecdotal testimony has to be given but I wonder if you would agree or disagree with me about the idea that yeah when you when you mention or or maybe represented Pilkington the fact that these aren't often being prosecuted as it is right now because prosecutors you say recognized that they shouldn't have to take into consideration the duty to retreat so isn't that a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that prosecutors are already looking at the need for complete safety and using prosecutorial discretion as they should in such a way as to determine whether or not complete safety which is defined in and as you know the criminal code elsewhere whether complete safety was present or not are we not already empowering our prosecutors to make a decision as to whether or not complete safety is available for someone who is using self defense defense. M. I. C. yes I said that numerous times prosecutors are doing a good job the problem is. I don't want to cut me off any time you'll come out that's one but it also I'm glad to hear that because I don't appreciate going to work well for me I'm. It's actually cutting off her microphone and hit yours well that's my apologies brother better that way so the question is whether or not that's really an area that the prosecutors should have discretion right and that's why we have this policy debate the question is if you are in a place that you're legally allowed to be if you're doing what you're legally allowed to do and you're attacked should the victim have an obligation to retreat even if they could retreat in complete safety even though that is a difficult task to to the fine but should they have to go through that reasoning should they have to do that or should they have the right absolute right the two to meet force with reasonable force and any other reasonable person standard should they have the ability to defend themselves and that's what we have to have to and I and I realize like. You know a lot of us really want to to get to the right policy at the politics is what's going to dictate the way most of us okay I get it that's that's what the tweet goes but in the end that's really the question this should be presented as is the best policy the person should have no duty to retreat or is the best policy the person should have to retreat and and you have that debate and you just you come down once at or other I'm gonna say them when they're on the side of the the victim and say they should I have a duty to retreat as long as they are doing what they're lawfully wedded. Represent Scott you're recognized for a question. I've I've approved you three times let's try again. Can you hear me there you go thank you madam chair US senator Ballenger and represented Bill Clinton have you research conduct or will you support a racial impact study to determine the potential impact that this would have on poor communities and minorities specifically in Arkansas. Would you have you done it or would you consider it or. Data. And the answer is no the we have and there's statistics the most of you have to talk about Florida because they they haven't and that's what the president Bill Clinton was pointing to I'm I'm and I'm I'm always up or down on people looking at things closely and and having a better better impact what I'm not for is is stopping this bill in order to to do that so but what I would be you know the support of others working with you to to to create a system where where this information can be tracked so we can look at it but I think what we're going to find represents got is is that it's not going to be much different than it is today so it's gonna be hard the point to where where the stand around offense was implemented and it wasn't just standard self defense but I am what I would want to do is create the whole the minister process like they have in Florida the that really adds some level dynamic that that thank you to me it seems like that would be a report difficult way to to do this but yeah I'm happy to try to get as much information as we can I think that's a good idea and to that point on I mean the second that I mean after we passed this legislation it becomes law I'm more than happy to over the next two years to the next session look at potentially forming some sort task force to look at its effect on minority communities in Arkansas and we have to do that. Follow up cannot you're recognized for a follow up okay have either of you thought about the potential increase of incidents that might occur at of rallies protest or counterprotest as a result of us passing this as a body. So it's you know like we sent with its long thirty four other states no one can point to any of those rallies are rights and in those states and say you know the standard ground of the defense for what they did I'm I'm not aware of any I don't are you Bob so I don't know that is an issue. Represent guess what you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair. I guess let me begin by saying to my prosecutor friends here here that I once was the prosecutor spent nine years as a deputy prosecuting attorney and I think that has been acknowledged by the sponsors of this bill that they have done an excellent job in managing these issues with a law that we currently have. And so I think that it's important to make a distinction between what the law is now. And what. The law will be that this proposal Will change the law to be. And so is it accurate to say that the current law is if you are attacked. That you have the ability to respond with appropriate and reasonable self defense. And that the duty to retreat is only if you could do so in complete safety is that an accurate statement of the current law. We turn your microphone on so that people can hear what you answered please yes. Okay thank you followed madam chair. You're recognized for a follow up and so I think just to be clear and. And let me also say that I absolutely support the idea that a person should be able to stand their ground that in the event that they're attacked and I think that under current law they have the ability to do that thank as it's been acknowledged unless. They could retreat in complete safety. And so I think the next issue at least in my mind. Is that. For a lot of people there's this idea that this is going to complete this law would completely eliminate the duty to retreat. But the way I read it you tell me if I'm reading it correctly. It maintains a duty to retreat the specific language says there is no duty to retreat if. And then you have to meet certain criteria. And so the the inverse of that is if you don't meet that criteria you do have a duty to retreat even under this law and so I guess my question to you is is that accurate. Yes that's accurate okay thank you. I would say if you're not where you're lawfully allowed to be you're trespassing if you're committing a felony if you're and phone is possession of the gun you are not allowed that you used to have the retreat Matthew technically yes I will still have a right to self defense in those situations doesn't expose you do you just have the duty to retreat and and it would be with complete safety in the event that's obvious in fact in the case for you represent McCall I think pointed out the fact that that language complete safety know that it that predates the that was put into the code in two thousand and thirteen but that that language predated years that's why arts are subject involved in an interpreter forever and so you know it'll be the same thing And I in and it's almost honestly it's like was like common sense I mean you never lose your right to self defense so if you are retreating and you can't do so safely used all the rights of the pencil you have no duty to retreat unless he can do so will complete safety. Thank you as well you're recognized for a follow up. I'm just asking these questions for point of clarification sure just to be clear and I think that's an important point about the the duty to retreat in complete safety because the way I read the bill and that may help to committee it certainly would help me out under current law it's very explicit that the duty to retreat is only if you could do so and complete safety otherwise thank you you don't have a duty to retreat and you would be a by justified in using self defense in the bill the way that it's currently written it just says duty to retreat but what I hear you say is is that although it doesn't say with complete safety that refers back to some long existing case law that even when it says duty to retreat it means duty to retreat in complete safety is that accurate that's correct okay thank you thank you and what is important to note is that what we're talking about somebody who's trespassing or carrying a gun in commission of a felony you know you're in those situations you still have a legal right you may be committing a crime that you prosecuted for something else but you still have legal right to self defense you just have a duty to retreat if you can't. Well after I get back in the queue but thank you. Represent Richardson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair of. I thought I heard you say earlier and in testimony thank you senator Ballenger that you spoke with of Preston attorneys association did you also spend any time with the sheriff's association chief of police and all those guys if you're working on this yes Sir follow madam chair. You're recognized so with that being said to piggyback off Representative Scott's point of there was no research that was done to see the impact on marginalized communities poor or minority communities why would you not want to spend that same amount of time to investigate this is whale instead of trying to push the bill right now. That research has been done so this is not like like we talked about we're moving into we're thirty four thirty six other states already have the same legislation all of our surrounding states have have a new duty to retreat even California Illinois have no duty to retreat the work we're and we're moving into an area where there is broad research and it's easy to go online and and look at look it up now you can find research this is one thing And resurgence as something else and and you know with you we all know that added about statistics and what can be done with them but but essentially there is the the research is rich on that and the impact the racially so those are definitely things we looked at and considered in an effort to the building pointed out you know the the individuals who use the use of successfully are disproportionately minority disproportionately people of color who actually benefit from this and so it is in it but the information is easy to find because we're not reinventing the wheel we're moving into a majority of the jurisdictions. Represent Smith you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair thank you senator Ballenger and Representative Pilkington for being here today I know we've had kind of running tax than conversations about this but one to two lines in the bill give me some heartburn and I'll just ask you for clarification. A line Page two line fifteen Page three line ten both of those areas deal with a lawful press lawfully present in a location. Let me give you a a what if scenario let's say that I am carrying my Michelbach and I happened to. See some. Activity that. Appears to be life threatening to some citizens up in my district. Maybe it's a gun free zone or maybe it's a piece of property at a school. And the potential for a mass shooting to occur. It does happen from time to time I remember and you all will to the west side shooting years ago the school teacher Shannon right my first cousin was gunned down in that. Event and it devastated the community but if I'm happy if I just happened to be there to pick up maybe a niece or nephew. A and I but you know I've got my gun in a locked safe in my vehicle to pick up a child and I see this happening. And I jump out of my truck to defend these children in the school teachers and maybe a bus driver. Am I gonna be not only would I may be called a hero for saving lives. But what I also be considered a felon and a murder because I was not lawfully present at the time how do I protect. You know that notion that a hero could all of a sudden B. R. convicted of a crime. Thank you press my question because that is part of the confusion that we we've seen and and it gives me an opportunity kind of address so the first thing to remember is we're not changing self defense law in Arkansas so we're just talking about the duty to retreat and so the the only time that this would come into the question is whether or not whether or not you have a duty to retreat when your lawfully present right so so we all agree that this just says whether or not this is just about whether you have a duty to retreat it doesn't change the underlying substance that you know basically got a force would be forced with reasonable force you look at the code and it says you have a right to defend yourself or others if you are a threat and then and the other language same thing of course about ready to commit a felony or they're threatening some of the person that you have a right to defend yourself or others. That situation you may very well be guilty of a crime if you carry a gun onto onto school property but that's already in the code thank that federal law state law that it has nothing to do with this bill you may be guilty of a crime however what this bill would do is it would say if you are lawfully present that you have no duty to retreat so if you actually I have a permit to carry a gun in whatever location you have zero duty to retreat but that honestly whether this bill exists or not it probably wouldn't really change the analysis at all because you have an absolute right to protect other people so if you're in a situation where you can use force that we force even to protect other person you have the absolute right to do that and so if there is somebody who is is you know if you become aware of the shooting and you have the ability like a lot of people who carry firearms when they heard shots they want to go Now interview they want to help they're not the kind of people run windows to what they have to so you can if you want to go intervening you want to help you would be allowed to do that you will be empowered to do that not because of this bill but this building change it either way that's under current law this would just say that if you're in that place you're not protecting other people you're just protecting yourself and your their unlawfully now it does say I'm awfully in that location so I think that there's a good argument that even if you're carry the gun on school property that you would not think unless a trespassing was somebody has told you we or you're in somewhere that you're not allowed to do that it's really more about the weather not it's legal for you to be there or not not whether not you're carrying a firearm but let's say the worst case scenario they interpret it as you had a duty to retreat then the question is. You're basically set exactly where you are today. Is that if you're breaking the law the use of right to self defense you just may have a duty to retreat if you can't and that maybe the the situation after this passes that's exactly where you are today. Follow up and you're recognized for a follow up. I guess the thing that really concerns me is the lawfully present peace because some places there are no signs. There's no sticker on the door I've actually walked up to buildings that have the proper signage. And noticed it and walk back to my truck and in my pick up in the console there's a gun safe and I locked it up went back in. But if there are no signs and there's no notification with signage and someone just happens to be let's say phrase it in the wrong place at the wrong time but because they're there and they have a weapon it becomes right place at the right time. How would they be prosecuted or how would they be exonerated and and maybe a criminal behavior it would be just like it would be today in that situation even if the declared you unlawfully present now if there's no snow posting then you're not unlawfully present it to the posting then the question of whether you're lawfully posting lawfully present or not it's one that I don't know is is clear thank you I think a prosecutor could interpret that as lawfully present I don't think that they probably should but it doesn't matter the worst case scenario and you're not lawfully present then you would have a duty to retreat so the worst case scenario it brings you back under today's law right it doesn't give you any additional benefits if you're if you're trespassing but it didn't give you any additional burden if you're trespassing it just basically says you have the retreat if you can't and it's not going to help you if you're guilty of some other crime for carrying a gun and place you shouldn't but also the gonna hurt you because that's a totally separate code section does not address by this. Represent flowers you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair in your opening remarks were simple content and even Senator Ballenger the. Senate Judiciary meeting that the bill passed out of the few weeks ago. There was a lot of back and forth in terms of data that exist or may not exist as it relates to the application of standard ground laws and the impact on our African Americans and other minorities. And I just wanted to share a couple of points with you before I ask my question. I just read earlier as you're making your remarks represent Pilkington. That there was a Urban institute analyzed stand your ground in their analysis. they looked at several cases across multiple states and found that after controlling for relevant factors a white civilian shooter who killed a black victim is three hundred and fifty percent more likely to be found justified. Then if the same shooter killed a white victim. And and we seen several that sort of data points like that and rather than get into a back and forth about you know what authorities to reveal what studies have been done what's accepted by home I'd like to point to real life examples that many African Americans have seen play out in real life whether we're talking about in twenty twelve as it related to Trayvon Martin which we're all aware of and I think when America became more. aware of the law or even if we talk about last year in twenty twenty When a model Aubrey was shot down in cold blood both in standard ground state now I want to point to my experience last year when I was someplace where I was could be lawfully. Of talking to someone not violating the law standing next to my car not on anyone's property. And I was accosted verbally along with the person I was there with ultimately there was a gunshot rang out not too far away for me in the dark. We had no one really knowledge of where it was coming from and the bottom line is I could have very easily have taken my weapon which I had. And shot into the distance where that gunshot was going through but coming from and. I would kill somebody could kill somebody's grandmother. Because of a circumstance that felt cheated and threatening in the moment but that was not threatening that person could have killed me. And then I would have been dead and not able to tell someone. That she was the aggressor. So my question to you is. Senate in two years you guys have worked with law enforcement to create these exceptions. But in an environment that we saw the weather in the nation's capital in June six or right here in the capital where people have bought guns and all kinds of reports about a possible civil war you can imagine the concern that many African Americans have whether we carry weapons or not and I carry one. How do we deal with the confusion behind what the law is and how what that apply before you get to a point. Where someone will be shot how would people know what their rights are. When if this bill passes all people would know as we're standard ground state. Thank represented flowers for those statements There's a lot in fact there's number miss some parts please forgive me. You know my opening remarks I said that there's kind of an easy way to know what this bill does you mean you can't be the aggressor you have to be lawfully present and you have to feel that you're three real life I mean that's three things to remember so if you. Check all those boxes you have a right to stand your ground. You know I've also been in situations where I've been threatened actually where nearby published in Newark I was out door knocking had a man tell me that if I don't turn around he was gonna shoot me right between the eyes. Had turned around walked away now granted. You know what they're dangerous violent terrible people up there I mean this man was mad at me because I just happen to be a Republican if the fact my dad went over to China we're gonna win in children's hospital which was odd enough that he knew that information and so you know yeah you they're definitely terrible secures a tuition I wish the law would have been on my side that had he. Progress that situation and been the aggressor in that situation further that I would have had a right to defend myself thank goodness it didn't escalate to that point but I just kind the way sometimes it is role Arkansas. you know that situation tell by you in in downtown I'm sorry to hear that but. and I you know I don't know why that person was harassing you or things like that but my hope is that with this law you'd be able to defend yourself and then the police show up they're not taking you into custody because the law is on your side and gave you the ability to defend yourself five thirty one at. So I think that that's I mean I think that the needs of the an illustration of in this were or ballot pairing the the citizen impairing the victim no praise god that it didn't didn't escalate any further than that but it did and that you're able to sit here and tell you to tell the story but well you hate to do is be like that the you know mama's boy down the that you know ended up going to prison and and his argument her argument is that he was just trying to defend themselves and in that situation you would have been the one that would benefit most by the by Stander ground up is in place if that had escalated because you would have been the natural grass. Follow at madam chair you're recognized for a follow up well first I was in downtown I was actually instance station in predominantly white neighborhood and I think That. My question though really speaks to the fact that they're it there really isn't a way for anyone to address in this bill the confusion that would ensue upon the passage of a standard ground bill all people would know is that they can stand their ground without knowing and I think that that would be detrimental to someone carrying a weapon thinking that they could defend themselves and end up in prison or for someone who could be killed and no one could be there to really flesh out with the details were but my follow up question centers around the impact that this could have on domestic violence victims. And we know that women and prison a majority of the crimes committed by women that lead to prison are you the financial crimes or crimes in which they have Murdered or Try to murder. To their partners and in many instances bills have been. related to domestic violence and I point to a couple of states in which stand your ground has been passed and challenged because they don't include domestic violence victims to allow them to stand their ground. I don't see that protection in your bill and I'm wondering if that's something that you would be willing to add and if not why not. Well first off the other comments you made about this make more confusing I actually believe the offices I think this makes our defense laws easier to understand we know what we can stand your ground we know we can't I think when the reasons why that I was called about this by constituents and wiped out this is This areas because right now we have a confusing situation of can we do we have any or treat can we defend ourselves you know what's what's right what's wrong you're so that just to that calling you at the beginning a second about the domestic violence it's interesting you bring that up because most of the time domestic violence offense happened within the home correct and so right now we have the castle doctrine which covers that so the reason why we didn't thanks to do that would be if there was some sort of situation let's say husband was beating his wife in the middle of main street down in Little Rock yes I mean she would have the right to defend yourself you're not the aggressor I don't think they need to be a special cabinet but for what I would imagine is ninety to eighty percent of the time in which you have a domestic abuse situation going on it's happening inside the home that the castle doctrine already covers. Done and I'll just add to that that you know exactly alike she's still a person and has all the rights of state around no duty to retreat however I'll I'll point out Page two line twenty eight the we do specifically including now it's not in the law that's not in this bill right but we do specific specifically include an Arkansas law that you have the right to use lethal force to protect for her to protect herself and so essentially what we're doing now is saying that she has no duty return to retreat and if you can training public sector like we're moving the duty to retreat all together out of it in this situation I think I think that it's an example of the weaker person physically becomes a more powerful person because of her rights to protect yourself. Represented Hudson you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair in. When I heard represented flowers sharing her gonna go to curse me that what she was trying to elicit was the fact that. That situation is one in which she could have inadvertently. Killed someone taking a life had the participants in that particular situation not had to take that split second that one has to when considering whether or not it is worth it to shoot another person take a life I'm before and moving forward with what was admittedly heated situation so I want to use that to kind of pick you bank over your piggy back over rather to the language in the bill the talks about reasonable belief. So according to the bill all that is required to extinguish the requirements retreat is whether that person has a quote reasonable belief that the person against whom the deadly force is used is eminently threatening to cause death or serious physical injury to the person or another person so and. In in in getting the emails and calls that I know all of us have about this bill I have been contacted over and over again from parents and caregivers of disabled individuals some of whom are non verbal some of whom are are grown men and women who are unable to express themselves in a way that may be immediately clear to people around them and some of whom may appear to be a a aggressive. that have you'll considered the fact that this may have on the disabled community and the effect that this might have in particular on nonverbal members of the community who are unable to express themselves and who may find themselves in a predicament in which someone says they had a reasonable belief that they were being threatened and they shot and killed one of these members of our community. At adamant from and it and it's at the heart of couple situations or right one and it's really sad that that that that happens because they weren't really a threat the reason why use the reasonable belief standard is that's what the reason the person in that situation would use and that's what our laws been for a long time and it's the most jurisdiction if you look on on page one you know there's two spots that that you see that Page one line twenty eight. And then on page two or page the operation one twenty eight Page one line twenty two line twenty eight but wanted to that language not underlined because it's not going to language that's the standard and it's not also you need to sharks affected predates its its agent would consult offenses whether reasonable person in that situation would have acted that way and and it is it is not a very good way to do it except for everything the other way to do it right you know what is the best way to do it even though we all would love to have you know things done in black and white but the the good news is is well established in the law and then we have good prosecutors will good jerk judges we have good jury's hopefully who will take in the reasonable in their assessment and and it is the way it's worked for centuries all up and here you're recognized for a follow up and in center village I'm glad you mentioned of the reasonable person standard because I think and and I'm certain because you have been a proponent of this type of legislation for number of years that you have read likely the same legal literature that I have that distinguishes reasonable belief and reasonable person standard to reasonable believe standard being one that can be colored by someone's experience so for example if I'm a white supremacist I may have a reasonable belief that a in a person of color dancing upon me is threatening whereas a reasonable person standard says we are not going to take a person's beliefs especially those that may be regular wrong and we're going to instead use the quote unquote reasonable person that we all learned about law school and say what is this behavior using reasonable person standard of procreating to the circumstances in Seattle a in looking at the the version of the bill that I have a reasonable belief is part of the underlying language because it is a change from the reasonable person standard so why are we using a reasonable belief versus a re. What person given the fact that you are legally distinguishable well it's consistent in Arkansas law and I think you'll find this not that distinguished born under Arkansas law but look on page one line twenty eight. First word in that in that line. Reasonably believes so that standard is the standard that the we have this on underlying that's current law that we have in Arkansas and then if you go down to Page two line line the twenty eight or I'm sorry Page two line the twenty four. And if you look is once again reasonably believes the reason why we use that language is because it's consistent with our code and you know if that's something that you you feel strongly about you know now you're impaired as a legislator file bill and make that change but that's not the point of this bill this bill is not to change underlying or well established right of self defense this is just to say now you know don't no longer have any duty to retreat and clarify that and so that and we did it in a way that's consistent with the code that that that already exists thank. Represent Scott you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair. Senator Ballenger will you send me the source of the information that you cited regarding African Americans benefiting from stand your ground in the reduction of crime in Florida yeah I actually didn't say anything about reduction of crime all there's strong evidence of that too but it but what I've always happens entity what I've always said about it is is you know we can make statistics basically to tell us we want to tell the reality is is the law itself is neutral in a powers individuals gives them a right shift the burden a walk for and towards prosecutors and away from the citizen defending themselves from person is do the potential victim and so what you'll see and and I'm happy to send it is in a powers anybody who's in that situation and in fact I can say and this is is a. I think I think we can kind of reason together this the person who is in a. Least politically strong place right to the person is not going to be favored by the system as well it's going to be the person who benefits the most because if the system is built against them and the prosecutor is looking for an opportunity to build them the police officers looking for an opportunity to know them the judges looking for an opportunity to nail them the jury is looking for an opportunity to nail them then saying they have a do you retreat if they can retrieving please safety as a tool they can use so the the individual who's less influential less powerful control families such is actually a parent more because we've taken that off the shelf and so but I but I'm happy to give you the statistics as in the be the to do so anytime. You're recognized for follow up okay I'm just going to speak from my heart this bill has the potential to bring out the worst of us in Arkansas I think this bill offers opportunities for escalation instead of de escalation and if we pass this bill I believe mothers in this state will be burying their children their husbands and their loved ones would you agree or disagree at night I don't disagree that you feel that way and I believe it I know you well enough to know that you're sincere and you wouldn't use this just as a political tool that happens I believe you believe that. What I would say it in response to that is I understand but we are not reinventing the wheel is not something new we're doing what thirty six other jurisdictions already do in one form or another and we're we're moving into that and and honestly I represent poking ten I think hit the nail on the head if it was resulting amount you would have people clamoring including me clamoring to try to have this repealed but that doesn't happen not one of them's been repealed it and thirty six first actions including places like Illinois and in California it hasn't been revealed yet and the reason is it is it I think it's the the best policy I think it is I think it is the just policy. Members are there any other questions. I see no more questions of this with these particular individuals I think we have a number of people who signed up for against Mister Herman you've signed up for have you said all that you need to soon okay the numbers to the next one thank you. That Mr Calvert Paul Calvert if you'll come to the table anyone who's coming to the table to testify. There is a button for you to push please identify yourself for the record and then you may make your statement Mr Calvert you're recognized come forward to speak for the. What is Paul Calvert I thank you for listening to me today. Let me give you will story I think one of the things that we fail to do a lot of times is to. Recognize situations where this could apply. Because it's it's kind of a weird situation so let me just give you a little scenario that. That might have been a bit more. Prevalent in times past when certain segments of the population were strongly discouraged from voting or maybe strongly discouraged from supporting their candidates. Lentil story this is a a parable to not a it's not an actual event. On election day Bob stand on the sidewalk holding signs supporting his favorite candid. Sam is a big park who hates the count of the Bob supporting. Sam stand across the street with a baseball bat and he yells to Bob and threatens to cave his skull and if he doesn't leave in the next five minutes. Races really close. And barbs afraid that this this last little bit of effort of holding a sign might make a difference between winning and losing brisket favor Canada. So Bob makes the decision to stand his ground in spite of the lethal threat from Sam. Sam comes across the street and Bob uses lethal force to defend himself against Sam. Because of the current law that requires a person to retreat and give up their rights when they're threatened if they can retreat and safety but may actually be subject to murder charges because he had an opportunity to retreat and safety. He chose to stand his ground and defend himself instead of giving up his rights and retreating. I guess I I have a problem. With Bob. In charged with murder because he chose to retain his rights and not fully in the face of a scoundrel who is threatening to kill him. I think. This bill recognizes. The rights free Americans. To not have to give up their rights that's the basic principle that I think we should recognize in law it's not a situation that comes up very often. I think it's a principle that should be recognized because this is an old English common law that's being it's been kind of held over in American law. I think if you look in blacks commentary on the English common law you'll see that this duty to retreat is part of Old English call Arkansas recognizes English common law and statute This is so even if you get rid of the duty to retreat in general the duty to retreat will still existing common law unless there statutory language to nullify that English common law duty to retreat now this bill does that this bill actually puts specific language in there to says you do not have a duty to retreat in this sept circumstance if you are following the specific guidelines and so this duty to retreat literally has to be. Condemned in state code in order to override the English common law. We call it case law sometimes but the the English common laws from the sixteen hundreds that's recognized in state law I think it's sixteen oh four is what the what the date is in state law. In and so this is this is something that America is a little different than than England we we recognize people's rights and we don't make them back down generally speaking and I think that is appropriate for free people that we don't make them feel the need to back away when someone threatens them. I think generally speaking. If I'm in a situation that's doesn't really matter a whole lot. I want to back down I want to be if I can walk away I can run away. To avoid having to kill somebody because maybe is a misunderstanding or something I would far rather do that. But if it's a scoundrel trying to make me give up my rights because he's a scoundrel when he's trying to maybe make make my favorite cannot lose election I don't think I should be charged with murder because I stand my ground and defend myself. So I ask you to vote for this bill. Thank you Mr Calvert are there any questions I see no questions miscarriage thank you for coming thank you will go down to or the next person signed up to speak against the bill Kate Fletcher was Fletcher if you come to the table and identify yourself. My name is Kate Fletcher. I am a mother and a turning. And I'm here today also as a volunteer with the Arkansas chapter of moms demand action for gun sense in America. And I'm here to opposed to urge this committee to oppose Senate bill twenty four more commonly known as standard ground. I'd like to use my time today to just review a handful of the fax before this committee. The first thing that we know for certain is that under current Arkansas law our Kansans have the right to self defense including with the means of deadly force. The speakers of the bill today as much admitted that. It is not disputed today the Arkansas law provides an individual with the right to defend themselves or others in dangerous situations. In addition to the well established principles of the castle doctrine which we don't have time to get into today under current law a person is not required to treat to retreat and less they can do so in quote complete safety. To be clear complete safety is a very high legal standard in two thousand fourteen Sebastian County prosecuting attorney Dan Xu noted that the significance of the phrase should not be understated he said quote that I have not found facts presented to me where I could say you could cook retreat in complete safety in twenty five years of doing prosecutorial work in quote in other words Arkansas's existing self defense laws already sufficiently give people the right to protect themselves their property and others when necessary. Perhaps that's why both the Arkansas sheriff's association and the prosecuting attorney's association opposed underground in two thousand nineteen and despite some vague claims to the contrary here today neither association has endorsed the measure before this committee. Because the Arkansas law already gives an individual broad right to self defense the second thing that we know today is that this bill is an attempt to solve a nonexistent problem. When Senate senator Ballenger previously proposed these measures in two thousand nineteen he was quoted as saying that current law quote leaves kind of a gray area if you use force to protect yourself you may actually be in violation of the law and you can still be prosecuted for manslaughter murder whatever end quote. In two years since pushing this policy Senator Ballinger has not found a single case or instance in which the ambiguity that he believes exist has actually caused an individual to be prosecuted for manslaughter murder whatever. I should also know that there is a second layer to protect against on judge prosecution should date directly. Prudent jury's comprised of hard working every day our Kansans have broad authority to establish witness credibility. And our Arkansas courts give great deference to those juries in their determinations. So one could assume then that proponents of this bill do not trust Arkansas jury's comprised of common sense our Kansans to weigh factors appropriately. These legislators must fear that our Kansans will justly convict their fellow citizens for acting in true self defense. I don't know about you but I have more faith in our hands and then that. Senator Elliot and senator Hendren members of two different political parties both pointed out recently that supporters of this bill have failed to provide any evidence or demonstrate any need for changing Arkansas's current self defense law. Please note did not qualify that sentence with phrases like the compelling need I'm sorry compelling evidence or reasonable need no I said any evidence any me not a single case not a single incident not a single prosecuting attorney to go on record to state that the current law somehow forces them to prosecute cases they don't believe they should have to prosecute. And please understand that this lack of a problem is not exclusive to our great state. A task force was put together by the American Bar Association in two thousand fifteen and they compiled a report on all of these laws that report included testimony testimony from law enforcement officers and prosecutors that quote consistently focused on the lack of evidence of a problem that stand your ground laws need to solve in quote it shouldn't be surprising then that the ABA subsequent adopted a formal resolution urging states like Arkansas to refrain passing laws to completely eliminate the duty to retreat. Growing up in the south I was taught that conservatives by definition are principled persons who are adverse to change for change sake. It therefore seems rather odd to me that some self claimed conservatives like Senator Ballinger are now eager to change and long standing Arkansas law without any proof that such a change is necessary. Failing to find an actual need to support changing this bill supporters instead insist that passage of this bill will merely bring Arkansas in line with the majority of other states. The third thing that we know for certain is that these proponents fail to mention that the vast majority of such states passed their bills between the years of two thousand and five and two thousand and twelve. This is an important fact it means that these bills are not long standing but rather a trend. Something else principal conservatives typically avoid. Arkansas now has the gift of time and we can look at the actual affects of these laws and make a more informed decision. And to be clear the effects of this legislation have been devastating. Reporter she died in actual cases in Florida we're stand your ground was used at the defense determined in the majority of those cases the assailant could have retreated to avoid the confrontation altogether and in roughly two thirds of those cases the person who was killed was on armed. We hear a lot about Florida's law because it became the model for the other states that followed but we can't look outside of Florida and see what's resulted elsewhere other studies highlight the role that these laws are associated with an increase in homicide rates translating to more than one hundred and fifty additional gun deaths each month in the United States. And for those on this committee who worry about crime I think you would find it concerning that roughly three out of every five people who claim the defense in Florida when they had killed someone had prior arrest. Roughly a third of those defendants had been previously arrested for serious crimes like assault and robbery. Research has also determined that these laws are associated with an increase in emergency room visits and hospitalizations our hospitals are hurting badly as is why. What we increase the burden of our frontline workers. Are they doing enough are they dealing with enough already. So sure other states may have these laws but to loosely quote my own conservative mother if other states jumped off a bridge would you jump to. The fourth thing that we know for certain about this bill is that it will disproportionately impact people of color in standard ground states homicides in which a white shooter kills a black victim are deemed justifiable five times more frequently than when that situation is reversed. And what we do not necessarily have data surrounding each of the circumstances behind these killings the disparity is clear and should be conscience shocking for everyone. According to the last available census estimates roughly fifteen percent of our residents are black. And in an era where more people than ever are finally concerned within equities in the black community why would we passed a law that negatively impacts them at such a disproportionate rate. And I can sit here today in in you date you with studies and statistics that have been completed and compiled by leading researchers all over the country but I know that some members of the legislature would still call Farrer. So that's why today I'm going to forget about the vast amount of research for the moment and focus instead on studies published by the rand corporation. The rand corporation is a nonprofit organization that was formed immediately after World War two to offer research and analysis to the United States Armed Forces. Its mission has been broadened over the years but it's still seek to present rigorous and objective research aimed towards the security of the United States of America it is widely considered to be free from commercial partisan and ideological biases. In two thousand eighteen the rand corporation first published an extensive review of existing research on various gun policies in that report they concluded that there was moderate evidence the second strongest level of evidence on their scale that these laws may increase homicide rates in two thousand nineteen and in two thousand twenty both ears rand authors published updates noting that since publication of their original report additional studies meeting rand rigorous standards reinforced and strengthened the findings that these laws do indeed increase homicides and firearm homicides. I feel it is important to share with you that the rand corporation has also concluded that no rigorous study has yet to determine that these laws. Rivet gun violence or violent crime or promote legitimate acts of self defense. In other words. Non partisan evidence tells us that passing this law promises nothing except more dead our Kansans. And finally we know that as of today at least four thousand eight hundred ninety five our Kansans have died from coal bit encoded related illnesses small business owners across our great state have been forced to close their doors families are struggling struggling to make ends meet struggling to educate their children struggling even to safely worship with their communities. I don't pretend that I have all the solutions to these problems I doubt one person or one political party could solve them all. I truly believe that preventing more deaths and re engaging our economy is going to take all kinds of people and all kinds of ideas. But I know for certain however this bill isn't one of them. It will not do a single thing to help struggling our Kansans. My conservative mother also taught me the importance of giving people the benefit of the doubt so I would. Giving this bill supporters that benefit the most generous conclusion that we can make today is that their bill is a problematic solution to a non existent problem. And with so many real problems and our state right now so many are Kansans that need leadership and guidance from our elected officials I have to wonder why are we talking about this today. I personally believe that you all have much more important matters to attend to and I know that many of you feel the same. I ask that you oppose this bill thank you are there any questions of ms Fletcher. Thank you miss what you for coming. What we do I do have one I'm sorry miss Fletcher will you entertain a question yes I will representing under would you're recognized for. Yes I appreciate your time hearing it as money as well as did you say that these have been on the books since two thousand five right. I'm sorry could you say that again did you say that the. Since two thousand five that he said that the majority of these laws that were passed between the years of two thousand five in two thousand twelve. Follow up Mr you're recognized for a follow up are you aware of any of these laws have been repealed but none have to repeal the date however as more information has come out about them we do know that several states are considering repeals including Georgia and Florida both southern states have will consider repeal bills this legislative session eleven member appealed today right as of today they have not been repealed that would be deal what this session okay thank you for your time you're welcome. I see no further questions thank you misplace your thank thank you all for your time. Members we have. To my count twenty five people who signed up to speak against the bill and we have no other individuals who signed up to speak for the bill it is my intention that we will give each of the pre people who have signed up the opportunity to speak because they are citizens of. Arkansas in under our rules we do allow them to speak I would for anyone who is listening and signed up to speak please be aware of the time I will be fairly. Flexible but if you begin to repeat what someone else has already said just be cognizant of that so I'm not telling you not to speak but just be careful of the time because we are now at three twenty five. With that I have. Evelyn Moorehead and Melinda reed who have asked to come to the table together. Those two individuals would like to come to the table together. And once you sit down there's a button there in the middle of the machine if you will have a seat and you can press the button and identify yourself for the record. Good afternoon I'm Evelyn Moorehead and I am speaking against the bill. I'm a criminal defense attorney of approximately thirty years I'm a member of the Herald flowers Law society also a member of the N. double ACP organization I have letters from. Of the N. double ACP an organization which. Represents of approximately thirty of approximately three thousand maybe more I have a letter from. The president of the black mayors association representing fifty seven black mayors across the state with the constituency of four hundred and eighty seven thousand constituents who oppose this bill. The Herald flowers Law society is the only black l'organisation in this state and we oppose this bill I'm the chairman of the social action committee for that organization. Because so many of facts statistics have already been given I'm going to Fargo those and see what I can just add to the conversation. As. Of. A as a citizen of Arkansas. As one who is from rule Arkansas. And as a practicing attorney. Defense attorney for whom these. Of the pending bill. Could have. Could have impact because I do that. All of the criminal attorneys defense attorneys that I've spoken with agree with me that we use whatever tools are in our back if there is a law that will benefit our client whether it's a good law that law you will use it we will use the law to the full extent that we can. There has been no disagreement in the discussion that this law would not advance. The state for our clients if you got a questionable situation if you have that then you're going to try to use it but the bottom line is we all agree the current status of the self defense law is sufficient. I'd like to say that. With respect to the use of this law. The use of the self defense law S. cities the use of the castle doctrine law had a few situations in which that could apply. In one situation the Prosecutor did not bring charges I want to talk about it other than to say in the minds of the family and and both my cases were. Within the family that I'm thinking out that come to mind. And the family surely. We're very hurt and devastated. At the loss of one loved one at the hands of another I have with me miss Melinda read and she will share along those lines I want to tell you about the first case just briefly that in that situation charges were not brought. But we actually do wonder or wish we we wonder whether deadly force was really necessary. A young man Jonathan. Was in the home his. On call Bubba attacked Jonathan's mother mother. Who is the victim's sister. He was attacking her body wasn't using deadly force. Jonathan. Eight. A very strong young man. Very likely could have with strained the on call. But he in the heat of the moment. When and got a gun and shot his uncle with the gun that the uncle bought for him and taught him how to use. I say that to say the situations are painful. I believe it was Representative flowers that talked about. That we're burying our children. And that's why I brought missed read fort I want to say a few things before I have per se something just in response to the conversation that's had this gone on some of my statistics match the ABA's assistance Exxaro. But I want to say. Representative Hudson. Focused in on the issue of reasonable belief. And I think that's very serious. A person might have a. Reasonable belief to fear for their life. The difference between having a reasonable belief. And there being an actual imminent risk to them. I believe is that duty to retreat. Without the duty to retreat. You have a reasonable leave a reasonable suspicion as been crosses. And you. Consider do I have to do this. Senate bill twenty four wants to remove consideration for life out of our law. In my view is a Christian that makes it an immoral law. To say it anyone to at any point you don't have to be rational we don't want you to really consider life. I believe in this great state we want to encourage. The valuation of life I come from the country and out in rule Jefferson County. I can remember one my dad shot. Adult this dog was eating our chickens. So I was happy that the dog got shot personally. Would it hurt my dad to the point where he ultimately had a heart attack first heart attack he shot another dollar for the same reason had a second heart attack. And I say that to say the valuation of life is important what used to be. And in this climate in which we have people who believe they have the right to take over the government that they believe they have the right to carry their guns and attack others. We do not need to feed the idea. That you don't need to be rational. We do not need to feed into irrationality. Some examples of of of the people who have. Exercised reasonable belief are acted on reasonable belief. Would be a high profile cases like former Dallas officer amber guy Jr who fatally shot bottom Jean September six of twenty eighteen. She expressed great result. I'm not so. High profile case. Would be the pine bluff. Chief of police. Who shot a hundred and seven year old mine road is the door in his home September twenty thirteen. And then there's Christopher Runnels who pulled the trigger twice in the accidental shooting of Ernie's Haas Hoskins. November ninth twenty twelve that's in lone oak those last three are in our state they they may not be known nationally but they're here and they didn't get as much attention as trevan Martin but lives were lost. On the town hall Friday night. I thank Dr a psychiatrist in Jonesborough testified about the psychological cost of deaths and homicides. I wish you were here to testify but if I might have this list Millender read. Who's. The mother of two children that she. Lost. At one time. Ryan read was my client. And A the situation happened where he he took the life of his brother I'm gonna happen is read to introduce herself and tell that story. My name is Melinda re. On I had three sons Nichols re read we ingest every and on. April. Twenty first two thousand twelve. We've sent around eleven it talking. In the parking in red redrawing SO I rolled in the cause and we are chair I went in there to see what was going on. And as I went in there at some to my son he just acted as Brinker. Bye sees why she was on the politics and another guy is so my oldest son Nick as we came behind me any with the cousin ran read out and next thing you know I sold they want to fight. And as I will myself from around Nick was re I looked I looked in the room is so neat on top of rand beaten and being re B. ne being renovated and I was trying to tell me to stop so I have my pre got to come. It's a room to try to stop it heard glass breaking. An ethnic came at the wrong I to Marvell called nine one one. SO. As I ran to my room. Right I have a to look around this coming into the hallway and I saw the Garner Holland no we're not no grant. I heard a loud pop it in NYC tell me a guy shot in our as I was calling nine one one negative on the floor. Iran was running around. Okay so ran ran out the house. Nate passed away on floor. And then I had. Once the ambulance came to tell me Niekerk me he was gone S. the officer was did they cure my phone number rant they tell me no. And I they told me he was led in part with hand behind and that is the it kit is brought. SO I knew I had to put Nick away. And the man was so confused because that grant. I don't know what to do because I needed the heading. But. AS Tabraiz. Hello Matula boards and so ran is right the game some years he's the he's he's he's don't Kerr he's got twenty some certificates is this a mechanic. And he's a a got a CDL license. I really do believe in a second chance March June alert hello my phone. And the founder of the State. Thank you misread. Miss Moorehead is there anything else you wish to add at this point. Very quickly very quickly very quickly and that is simply that the castle doctrine did not work for Ryan and these please do not work the self defense doesn't work the same for African Americans as they do for others. Of Ryan had priors in the the negotiation didn't go in that same way but I think this great body for all the hard work that you do I'd encourage you as you're balancing the interests of the the government's interest to govern. Versus the infringement on the rights of the individuals. Would weigh heavily in favor of not imposing this bill. Very heavily and I I would argue that it is if challenge seriously not stand up on the constitutional muster and I thank you for your time. Thank you Miss for his. Next on my list is Michael Kaiser Kayser. I'm sorry five pronounce it wrong this strip concert here. as the attorney who handled the task versus state case at the trial level through the court of appeals which both houses of this assembly declared as a basis for Arkansas's a constitutional carry state I've I've been approached. By the gun owners of Arkansas to analyze the this bill and how would it change things in practice in criminal courts and to give the practitioners take on this bill in light of that experience so I've heard from the sponsors that this bill would eliminate the duty to retreat however after my review this bill I would disagree with that and I would argue it would perhaps three more situations where our Kansans and other citizens in the state are required to retreat rather than than not my my general diagnosis as a practitioner not anything political is that if any broke don't fix it and if you're going to fix it don't break it but that's with this with this bill would do I mean the fact that we have moms demand action here agreeing with a pro second amendment groups such as the gun owners of Arkansas that this bill is bad and for drastically different reasons shows that it will not achieve the clarity with which it sponsors say it is it is going going to give us and so I just like to go through each subsection of in this new standard round bill to point out the issues that the that I see in terms of practice and and I really feel bad for whichever committee is going to have to put together the model jury instruction here because it is going to be a nightmare if you've looked at the model three instruction for our loss of use of lawful forcing defensive person it It already almost takes a law degree to understand it I can only imagine what this for five page instruction will look like based on this bill the first issue is in subsection the one that's on. Page three line ten and it's the term lawfully present as an attorney this is a bad term because what does it mean I heard the Senator talking at length that if you are trespassing you can avail yourself of standard ground and then you fall back on the old law however that that's not true this new law would remove the phrase in complete safety so so so that's not true first off second off its lawfully present language does not require the person to be knowingly lawfully present or even recklessly lawfully present and so if we look at our criminal trespass statute in Arkansas requires that recklessness that knowledge for that purpose but here this would detach trespass for many guilty mind requirement just focusing on the result so somebody if someone is trespassing without realizing it for example if they're in hot springs in there on federal land while carrying a gun and they don't realize it they now have a duty to retreat where they would not under existing Arkansas law so it appears the sponsors of this bill are not achieving their own goal of creating situation or more situations where the use of lawful of the legal force is lawful. and and there's no definition for this lawfully present term in the bill and that's a huge problem is someone unlawfully present if they're carrying a firearm unlawfully into place but they have been asked to leave yet are they trespassing at that point is what they are can they be lawfully present while engaging in unlawful conduct until they're asked to leave I don't know because that bill doesn't tell me and I am a lawyer with six years experience doing these these trials are a concern to me what the average Arkansas citizen would come up with moving that is so at the very least I would implore you all to add some sort of definition or to add some sort of knowing requirement to lawfully present moving to subsection B. two. I this is incredibly superfluous which as I understand the purpose of law it is not to be superfluous but we already have that requirement in another section of the self defense law it's unnecessary subsection B. three that Page three line fifteen it appears to create a new anti provocation requirement that doesn't exist under current Arkansas self defense law so that if I provoke somebody and they react. In a way that that is over reacting with with lethal force I may not be able to avail myself of this apparent you know were were allegedly eliminated duty to retreat but but I don't think we are. Early provocation is a defense that mitigates culpability this would be flipping it around. looking at subsection B. four that's one three excuse me Page three line eighteen. But again it's superfluous because we already have a felon in possession law but but this this subsection even if arguably this could be read to empower felons to have firearms as long as it's in their home or in the curtilage and because this expressly creates an exception that allows them to stand their ground I in that way so it's almost officiating the felony possession statute that we already have which seems a little odd. We already have a law to cover that situation by the way and I have a client charged in that situation a felon with a firearm who shot someone actively engaged in the sexual assault of a child and what that that defense is the choice of evils if we had gone to a jury trial in that case we could have presented to the jury what was I supposed to do allow this to occur or violate this crime if the jury accepted that he would have been acquitted so we don't need this to cover that extremely rare situation. There's also some concerns with with subsection B. six it doesn't it it doesn't allow standard ground to apply to people engage in any activity in furtherance of a criminal gang not criminal activity so if if a kid is going and buying a sandwich for someone and that that's a member of their gang or they not allowed to stand their ground under this law arguably nope. From a from a practitioner's perspective there are multiple ambiguous in trouble some terms in this law portions of the bill arguably shift the state's burden of disproving self defense on to me on to the defense attorney on to the defendant to prove that my client did not have to retreat. I'll be duplicate several other parts of the criminal code needlessly and in other parts seems to invite violation of the criminal code like we talked about with a felon in possession. it is far less clear than the current statutes of the goal is clarity It has not been achieved and it will lead to far more situations where a person using deadly force will have to retreat rather than less this will make a lot of people who are not even guilty of misdemeanors ordinance violations. Guilty of murder battery in situations where they would be not guilty under the current law again if it ain't broke don't fix it and if we're going to fix it the same that I appreciate all y'all's time I trust to do the right thing to vote against this bill. Mr because or we do have a question if you're willing to take one yes ma'am representing their. You're you're recognized for your question yes ma'am thank you the modem chair it's not a question to the presenter it's a question the to you of. You said we had several. this deal will testify on. would be a proper motion to limit debate to five minutes. It It is the proper motion let me inquire before we do that let me thank you Mr causer for coming in a we appreciate you being here today thank you everyone. No. I was with you okay. Did did you want to add something to it Mr K. okay represent very let me take you up in just one moment if you don't mind yes ma'am if you please identify yourself for the record. I'm I'm I'm I was worried. S. the button it should work when there you go you're on when it's read. My name's Dallas green on the executive vice president public relations if gun owners of Arkansas and we represent not only conservatives but also Democrats we represent all gun owners of Arkansas we have thousands of members all of our state and just like the conversations we've had in here today it's very confusing and because of the wording and because of the confusion we want to go on record that we do not support this bill thank you for your time. Thank you very much. No Representative berry and back to you. A yes you can do a motion let me up we have left on our list we have a number of people who have traveled to be here we have around twenty people. Left on our list and they are all against the bill. And yes we can do a a motion to limit time there are several ways that we can do a motion hang on just one moment strolls there's several ways that we can you can propose a motion you can do it as a set amount of time and this is all we're going to do and if the first person takes up all the time the no one else gets to speak or we have done in the past were. Each person who is here to speak has three minutes or five minutes each of sometimes. So those are really kind of the options and I want to lay those out for you you're you're certainly recognized if you wish to present a motion in members that motion is non debatable and it would take a majority of us to pass. Man man chair if a motion to have so many people and they're all opposing the bill would like to make a motion that we limit debate five minutes. But let me clarify five minutes per person five minutes total. Five minutes per person I think that that would be. Okay members we have a motion on the floor that we limit debate to five minutes per person. Everyone understand what the motion is all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no. The eyes have it from this point forward Allison you'll keep our time of each person who signed up will have the opportunity to speak but your time will be limited to five minutes in my faithful helper here will let you know and I will let you finish your sentence at that point in time but then we'll move for. So under those rules. We will move to the kisha Snell the smell if you'll come forward Jennifer yourself miss mills there she is okay. You're recognized please identify yourself and then you may make your statement I'm the kisha smell. And I am eighteen year resident of northwest Arkansas. I'm here to give testimony I've heard and the previous statements and the statistics that have been given so am I just would like to give testimony to kind of support the statistics and. So not too long ago a woman that I know was sitting at her routine doctor's appointment at the point it was going as normal until this doctor started to discuss some topic there really triggering for her so in response this woman got up out of her seat and tires out of the office to her car. A mental health professional Follett head outside to the parking lot I'm trying to persuade her to come back in trying to the escalate her. This woman became increasingly agitated and she got in her car and attempted to drive off and out of the parking lot I'm within the parking right there was a parking gate leading out to the street and. That she was waiting for it to lift and as she was waiting there the mental health professional tried one more time to get her to the escalate and get her to calm down and at that moment I'm feeling trapped and this woman began to increasingly escalate and she began yelling and repeatedly let me go over and over again and. When the gate was just taking a little too long to left she started to yell that she would drive straight through the gate and she was not let go I'm at this point it's pretty clear that she had it checked out physically from the actual situation and with Maine V.. Just kind of in her own mind in her mind she was feeling trapped by the gate and by the professional right by her windows she had lost all awareness of her actual physical surroundings and and so she just be continued to get louder and become a bit belligerent likely though the gate did left and she was able to drive off into the street into the parking lot and right out of the parking lot into the street and safety I'll I'll days later. In on any given day this one can be found walking the streets and by herself for hours at a time talking out loud to herself. Sometimes he sees people things and objects that aren't really there I'm there's other times where cars can be parked in the same position that is triggering for her and reminds her of and just things in her in her past that have no real connection to what she's seeing in the physical there's other days where she will lock herself in her room for days at a time only coming out of her room and to eat and to use the restroom it is determined. On any given on any of these given days whether she's outside or locked in her room she can feel trapped that same feeling that she felt in the parking lot and her reaction can very to those situations. And most people don't really know the outward signs of schizophrenia and and because. Many people don't know that were sent to schizophrenia many people also don't know how to respond to people with schizophrenia unless they've been professionally trained to do so as the child of a parent diagnosed with this disorder I've had to learn both the disorder itself and how people tend to respond to those who are diagnosed with the. I have to know how everyone will respond to my mom the next time she feels trapped in a situation. I know hi hope law enforcement will respond to her and I know how mental health professionals are trained to respond to her based on such as therapists and social workers also the hermetic my grandma the response to her and has her sisters respond to her. With the duty to retreat I know how most of her neighbors typically respond and we'll respond to her in the future. But without a duty to retreat and I'm not sure how those neighbors will respond or had any person would respond if she comes into contact with this is not only my experience but the experience of many children who have a parent with a mental mental illness this is the experience of many parents who have children with mental illnesses or any other family member with a mental illness and so as you and hear more testimonies today I also ask that you consider that experience in this dance of of everyone really who has any relative any who is the caretaker of any relative who has a mental illness and could escalate during a crisis in a way that is not easy to understand and. Unless you've been professionally trained to do so and so because of that because my personal experience in because of the experiences of being a caretaker for it can't with mental illness and plan to ask that you all please oppose this but. Thank you Miss mill next we have Mr Hasson Johnny Hassinger hasten. Her son I'm sorry. Hassan Mr Hassan. Been all. Mr Ben hall. I'm here. Okay. Mr hoster needing his time. Fernando woods. What are you Mr Hassan yes ma'am. Mr sign you'll have to take your son off or rules do not allow signs. Three. We don't allow our members to carry signs or posters. What hang on just Minnesota you'll sit down at the table if you'll sit down at the table and then push. The button. And then if you wish to push the button on the microphone right in front of you. Represent a berry could you please go pushes button real quick. Okay you got it you know okay we're good okay if you push the button state your name and then you may read your sign. Okay I'm John anyhow some. I'm a citizen of rural. India. I want to. Talk about the. Implications. Of this. Of the Senate at the golf. Would. Dr Martin Luther king junior CA our readiness to allow arms to purchase a wheel invited William. We have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular Page ten. On that note. A. The. Are you talking about. Fifty seven things. In my biggest concern is why is it. It you have to reach three. Ninety three with the fourth. That constitutes murder. And so those of you who. A consistent NEO religious worship. Yes the definition between west murder. In which case. And this would like to share with you. First of all. A new book is a is now shall not kill. But then as a later translation from scholars of the Hebrew language C. CA is the ocean a motor. So would constitute the difference. You religious people. Motor and killing. According by definition means the unlawful killing of one or more human beings especially with malice aforethought. So this particular bill says you don't have to retreat right SO that constitutes malice forethought in my opinion. It also says. Is that one sees easily see the age of violence weapon three murder consume be easily the option for persons. Are they do not have a wheel for any godly intent okay when does this does not exist in a society where everyone's family and friends at the mercy of somebody who's been casually taking mass. This do you will day we have insane people to seek their reason and imagine problems with Meredith and they have not been known to do it is reason for all reasons at all the point of it is is when you say that they believe. Yes all right to one of the options these days if you believe that person is in today and we are those of you who are scholars and definitions if you read the book call the psychology of insane people are is a is a delusion of person. If that person when they believe is based on reality and truth. based on knowledge in and research and education. A person will be seen in that believe at all costs disillusion purse what was the other obvious today a person who has no knowledge who has no moral compass who has no basis in his the bridge believe for the obligee he will she will ration of that is their belief. And they will defend their busy. At all costs look it up guess what they call Donald J. trump delusional so the issue is for me is that. One of our most of our religious persons. I said and I quote everyone for god for the grace of god I would have shot a few people already. Jesus wasn't like that either when Jesus was mistreated and call names First Lady Janet Huckabee quoted in New York. What is your husband say. Before service on you I'm reading you you have fifteen seconds. Okay what I read what would put her husband say two days before a triple execution which the power to stop governor Huckabee Hayes he said that he pose a couple of players his death crucifixion gave him a perfect opportunity say since he did not use Jesus deny you the opportunity to speak out against executed to govern state implied Jesus must be considered okay with capital punishment I'm saying to you and as the basic rights of a human being is directly via you do not have any option to make a decision domino's a person just because it went up or you feel do you have a three. Thank you Mr Hassan. Next we have Dallas green Mr green. I'm sorry thank you a Fernando woods. This was if you'll just stand right there for social distancing purposes until Mr Hassan can move thank you. Hello my name is Fernando woods I'm a citizen Little Rock Arkansas. And say hello to the chairwoman and the other representatives. Thank you for having me I make a brief statement that I wrote. I'm I have a question if the if Mister Ballenger. the state of Arkansas has practice blind justice and operated on the correction to law. Our office is involved in crimes against humanity should be arrested convicted of forced to serve time with the general pope population that they have wrong. This state has label hate crimes is destruction of public property or statues that represent racism. I submit to you that Charles starkes shooting Braley blacks are seventeen times as a hate crime. Real hate crimes are being committed by races citizens and cops every day claim that that they fear for their lives which is a code in my community day it was murder they merge the black man or woman. Arkansas is the home of the grand dragon of the KKK we have credible as we Arkansas pick patriots and other hate groups now you want to give him a green light to sue without calls long as they can articulate a false fear and assist thank you grant that's the foster what if black people just started soon I'll people where mega hits. Would that be thank you Graham. Because every day when I see one of those that I feel threatened. Should I stand my ground so if the law is passed be ready for the the the backglass of that. We see a blue light matter flakes we sell domestic terrorism and I national capital that's our National Council did not beers hours black white whatever because we are in America is our capital. We saw with the the. So I will consider my life in danger at any time I see it insurrectionist symbol Confederate flag. Being a blue lamp leg. Magga head. Don't tread on me. What am I supposed to do. I got children. I got a son. I'm not going back down we already have levels just five homes that if you do wrong you kill somebody you round them we don't take you to court you don't go you don't see insured and they going you have a jury of your peers and we all read a red Cape that situation. But that's why I want to vote no on SB twenty four. We got examples of other groups like Q. anon do don't you think they would deserve to have the state of. Even if I didn't pose a threat to him I'm black I'm six one and two fifteen I'm threatening to some people they might just shoot me he was walking to faith best would you open it up. I see this game here you open up the I could just shoot him no matter where you're just because of my rational believe that he's a threat to me. We have Trayvon Martin walking home. George Zimmerman stood his ground a black man defending his wife in a parking lot. I'm a white man came out such shoddy amenities in from his wife is keys he was then his ground. Accident a car wreck. Black men white men they got into a argument the black man got in his car drove away. White man followed him the black man get out so why you finally decided in the chest stand your ground best will will open up. So let's use common sense and be humans. That's all I'm asking vote no on SB twenty four. Thank you thank you Mr woods next we have Dustin Murphy. Mr Murphy you'll come forward. Got a minute to minute version. the good afternoon of I would like to thank all of you this is my first time being here so it's been quite an honor to wash this privilege play out and. I just wanna bring a different angle a and I appreciate represent of Hudson I think you brought this up earlier my wife and I we have two sons and our youngest has special needs. we adopted him from Ukraine at the age of four and a half and we brought him home he was diagnosed with RuPaul's the nystagmus which is kind of a muscular I issue he was I was in New make just because of malnourishment in the orphanage he has come a long way in in our Arkansas public schools have done a great job for him he is extremely happy and extremely jolly but he's also very curious and impulsive in his ability to control his executive functions wants to touch everything right You may not know how much violence occurs towards the individuals in our communities across this country with special needs and disabilities if you have to take your brand to a dark place like I did prepping for this go research it it's it's not a good site and most of the time that is gun violence You know I think. What I did when I was researching all this you start looking up because so many instances are police unfortunate making it making it a tough choice and it's regrettable and I watch that play out Joe see instances of other individuals where. In a thank the interact with the the folks with disabilities in our community specifically. I was looking at. Yes Daniel Adkins junior he either the twenty nine year old man with the capacity of a thirteen year old and he was walking his dog AT cross in front of a Taco Bell in a car almost hit him and he's you know obviously words were exchanged and that driver felt threatened he got out and shot Mister Adkins Mr I can died right there The defense he used with standard ground that's what he used in shooting with special needs man you know my son and I we walk our dog and right now he's young and I'm there but I'm not always there And so I think I just really want to talk about a couple of instances is raising a child with special needs you know you know the look when when you have a special needs child you know when people work you know when your child's not acting in ways that. Are expected in social situations it only takes one instance with these types of scenarios I can specifically remember we're at the pool in the locker room and Roman was walk around twist in the locks like. Many of you have kids there's a good chance they might have twisted the auction a locker room there was a man and they're changing and he got very angry said that my lock it's not your. I was there again I was there I could the escalate the situation. College eyes sorry sorry just doesn't understand Thanks when you think about that here's a man that eventually my son will be it will be my size you know he'll be a grown man and SB twenty four would allow that mention my son. And yet in a court of law and we can debate on that stuff you know in the courts on what people believe and if you believed that my some of the threat he could use as P. twenty four but I would lose my son you know I think we get so focused on the judicial process and the legal wording of these I think all the stats of instated I need to bring those back out on these very rare instances so I'm just asking you to vote no for SB twenty four thank you. Thank you Mr Murphy. Jamie Womack. Jaime Womack. Hello members of the committee my name is Jamie Womack and I appreciate you giving me time to speak today I am opposed to SP twenty four for a much more personal reason that I think almost every other Speaker you've heard today is I'm originally from Louisiana I move from Louisiana to Arkansas three years ago. When I lived in Louisiana my brother was killed during a mass shooting in which the shooter you stand your ground laws of Louisiana to not be prosecuted of murder. I would like to give some further context on what happened that night it was Christmas night two thousand and thirteen. My brother had gone out to a birthday party and a area called of old town Slidell this is small city outside of New Orleans is not a major public attraction by any means it's downtown areas smaller than here in Little Rock an individual's go have dinner drinks and enjoy their. Friends it's a little bit of it one street entertainment district. I'm. On that night there was a fight inside of one of the bars the board decided to close and have all the individuals that were there enter into the street that also had other businesses who served on their outdoor areas food and drinks to customers. My brother and his friends were at a of local taco shop two doors down from where the bar head kicked all the individuals out into the street. Nothing of consequence happened for about thirty minutes and then. A gentleman returned from his car with the gun. He opened up fire on a crowd of seventy five people killing two injuring six. And then proceeded to flee from arrest. He was on the run for five days. With the US marshals. Having a national manhunt. Crimestoppers is ringing Award for his arrest. And it wasn't until. That point that the crime stoppers in US marshals were able to catch him that he was brought interested Louisiana. We were told multiple times that the system would it fail us. We were told by police we were told by prosecutors we were told by everyone that the laws Louisiana were found that stand your ground was meant only to protect us and never to harm us. But the man that took my brother's life. Without on bail. For a previous shooting. In which during a felony robbery he shot a man in the leg. He had been skipped his jail sentencing hearing. On November eighth and then proceeded to kill my brother on Christmas site two thousand and thirteen. I don't know that people really understand the implications that this bill has in the context of a quarrel. It is one thing to say that these are meant to protect us. When in reality as other defense attorneys here have said they will utilize every single thing in their toolkit for their client in the best of their ability because that is their job. And when you give them this tool it will no doubt be exploited to let. What should be convicted murderers run rampant on your streets Louisiana is not someone that you will have to be a part of they have the national's highest homicide rate interest in the area that there's no reason to other than that it's allowed. You don't want to join company or join hands or have the blood. In the grief of all the family members like mine who will never get to hold their level once again I have to go to hearings where there. Killer will be let free. Please do not allow this to happen in Arkansas I beg you please do not let it happen. Thank you Miss Womack. Dr charities this. Dr Smith. If you press your button on your microphone please state your name and your time will begin. Good afternoon I'm doctor charity Smith chair of the education department at Philander Smith College. Consultant and former assistant commissioner. For education in the state of Arkansas. I come to you today. On the behalf of children. I come to you today United in a common purpose. A common conviction. In a common desire to save lives. My purpose is simple. To use my voice for social justice. But those youth between the ages of twenty and thirty four the group most likely to be impacted by this law. To use my voice. For my college students. Who are you getting Class. And can not attend this meeting. I come here not to stand my ground. But to stand in the gap for Arkansas students and citizens. Who are likely to lose their lives yep you pass the bill. I come to you today with a heavy heart. I'm a mother and a grandmother of. How many tragedies like Trayvon Martin of this must our country indoor before we reach free from allowing alarmed citizens to shoot and kill. How many lives are we willing to destroy for you see. When you place in a bill like stand your ground not only do you destroy the victim. But you can also just or the person who is the shooter. Because many times when a private citizen shoots someone. They are never mentally the same. Imminent danger we protest. Unfortunately research says that the majority of the people involved in the shootings. Could have retreated. But the Jews by and large not to. Emitted changer you protest and in some instances these folks have the propensity to do more violence and enjoy it. Imminent danger. Minority children are pad tends more likely to feel the disproportionate impact of the results of this bill you see unfortunately. Darker children. Are too often associated with crime and danger simply because the a darker chilled. One of my young students wrote in her estate today. A government that's founded on godly stress should not support the use. Of the only force between citizens. I say to you today. Retreat from injustice. Retreat from the use of on bridled deadly force. Retreat from passing a law. That may only get more Arkansas children keep. Retreat. Teacher keys as we teach them in classes to de escalate when violence occurs. Rather than escalate. I ask you today. Please. Reach treat. From passing this bill. Thank you. Thank you doctor Smith. Next we have and forgive me if I print mispronounce your name cherry hill. Sorry for to your service I kind of got close I hope and I apologize. At press the press the button and you state your name and your time will begin can you hear me. Thank you might go just a little bit closer and we can't hear you I believe. Thank you so much good afternoon everybody my name is as long as you mentioned case that I put the yes but it's and I'm a new resident and the City of Little Rock I've been living here for the last year at thanks to call it. Of bed in all my years living in the United States since two thousand three I believe it in three different states Florida Alabama and now Arkansans migrate to my new home so I'm Mexican American and make work I work in Arkansas United and the deputy director. They were that I do it's maybe with the immigrant community. Adrian all these years of working with the community I also have experience the thunder thank you for a little in a really bad a man. Living in Miami I learned the names of Trevor marring but also might is Alexander. Two of those cases where the ones that really brought the community unfortunately. To get it right with the seventy fifth and meant more most of my work was to unite the community the African American community in the Latino community to better understand each other we were more license we were talking with our community about this issue racism and obviously the motor of these two human beings. That's why we're here unfortunately talking about how flirty them and thank your friends for a little employee that has close B.. Big At that much to our community an anchor their typically here how the floaty that cases have brought up to to the floor you know before you and based on that a year some working with the community and working with a direct impact the families we know that that at least on my first hand experiences it's not gonna be a benefit our community. Now As you notice I have a thick accent and these also if the problem in our community when we are dealing with the police. Sometimes we don't have a general out fully understanding of what's going on with the situation and maybe if it is gonna be a escalating situation with the police officials sometimes police officials are not trained to have cultural into the station for our community or there don't speak another language they don't understand our community so this a interactions with police can escalate to violence as well and also can be just against Delhi forced out around our community so that's why I'm here we know this issue is a mainly against the African American community and African descent publication but also in a in a minor skill to the immigrant community and even in the state of Arkansas. So that's why I am here representing my community but also in solidarity with the African American community and African descent thank you so much. Thank you Miss whereas. All right we have Mister John compstat stock are you here. All right please come to the table state your name and. At a point because the judge retired early and I got to serve on the felony criminal docket few years back well folks I I I am and I really appreciate the opportunity of talking to you and I encourage you please vote no for Senate bill twenty four I'm I drove down here because I consider this to be the most serious bill that needs to be defeated of coming before the legislature that I'm aware of the number one two or three groups what we're looking at every bill that's being filed. Nothing against the sponsors No of Senator. Ballenger explaining what is motivation for taking at face value a hundred percent because I do in here and I can have a wonderful conversation together but listen what this bill is about and I saw or heard maybe the governor said the other day somebody ask you what are you gonna do governor to come to your desk he hadn't decided yet because he said I'm really worried about the unintended cost consequences. That is what this is about we've already established I think unequivocally there's not a need for this bill Hey I grew up in a house of seven sisters three brothers we were poor we learn to conserve anything of value when I went to law school started seventy two so I'm I'm seventy years old standing in front of you I was I I've never even met an attorney when I went to law school but I was mesmerized by the law and when I read about the duty to retreat I thought what an incredible value that we have inherited from England and we've carried it all the way through our common law as the gentleman told us before our common law that said we preserve we value life so much they're working oppose the duty to retreat where you can do it safely not in any other context don't back away from that principle if you do what will happen is we're going to see banners driving up and down our interstates in our in our neighborhoods in our community it's going to sit stand your ground stand your ground because these people are not going to understand the nuances that that the sponsors might intent they're not going to get that message they're gonna think something dramatic has happened in Arkansas it has stand your ground we now can assert ourselves folks I apologize. Do you believe that we have a contingent of people in our state that are white racist supremacist do you believe that do you believe that this bill if passed will they will take that they're the ones watching this debate they're the ones waiting to see what's going to happen with this bill because it will just be in power them it's not just about how many people die will be a bit worked we can count the death but you know what you can't count the amount of intimidation the amount of terrorizing that's going to go on with this bill because listen I'm not I'm a white male so you think we us white by us white folks we we have a cross to bear for our own history but black people in this country in this state they have been terrorized. From for hundreds of years do you guys do you remember the nineteen fifties when we saw the Little Rock Nine and we saw this hatred of the white people spewing hatred even for kids. I'm fortunate I grew up in a home where my mother taught us differently we didn't even understand what that a board was about. I still don't but do you think it's still exist do you think it's out there and you think it presents a danger to a substantial group of people black people people of color in our state do you think they're going to be subject to more victims as victimization if we pass this bill I think they will be in you and I are going to know about it because we didn't know about all the care they were facing day in and day out of I read a lot of history I read a lot of history and and and and and the terror. That black people have been subjected to throughout our history even up until the current thing. Is is something that is hard to deal with so I I would just say. Please have a I start off by telling you we will my my brothers sisters we could serve things of value this duty to retreat it's a valuable thing. Conservative values it's not what I'm here to talk about all the time in the store and state I've lived here since ninety four it's now a very much my home but conserve what is valuable vote no on Senate bill of twenty four thank you. Thank you Mr Koester stop. Excuse me. If I can hear clicking I know that my members can hear clicking. And. Our officers in the back if there's anyone else making any noises clapping clicking after a witness would you please remove them from the room. All right next up we have Carol Sherman. Carol Sherman. on you may if you state your name and you may begin is it on yes. Madam chairman Mr vice chairman at measurement could you get a little closer sometimes with our mass we have a hard time hearing thank you members of the committee and staff ladies and gentleman. I'm Carol Sherman I'm a resident of little work. Fifty two years ago my husband and I welcomed our first child. A beautiful boy. We were live within. For many months we were less than twenty. Unaware that are handsome son. Separate from an unknown sender on. Which would prevent speech. And cognitive development. That he would never call me by name. That at age fifty two his age now. He would function in many ways as a young toddler. Growing up in a home with spacious grounds. Meant a certain amount of freedom for our son. Who was and still is. Unaware of danger. For almost fifteen years we struggle to raise our family. Which included two daughters. And always with the reality. That John could never be left alone. That we had to know at all times where he was. In the House. Outside. That he would be silent and not respond if we call them. One terrifying day when John was a teenager. I could not funding not in the house. Nor was he in your. I call my neighbor several blocks down asking her to go in the street look to the north. Look to the south. Could he be headed toward Markham Street. I hurried up. Out the back up an alley. Headed for the street behind our house. When I got to the top. A young man. The stranger. Stood on the sidewalk and said. We have been. Our son a tall silent teenager had walked at the alley across the street walked around the side yard and into a home where he was not known. The owner a doctor. Was blessedly not afraid of John. Though he did not know him. For us and it must have been alarming to see a stranger. In his home. Probably moving his arms uncontrollably. Threatening waste making strange noises. And coming to close. Go outside and wait the doctor said to his own child. The mother will soon be here. When I think about that day I think how fortunate we were. The doctor Morris had the confidence to pause into white. Wait until events unfolded which would shed light on an unnerving and inexplicable. Some would say threatening situation. In some key and terrible ways older persons experiencing the effects of advanced Alzheimer's disease. May exhibit similar traits as those of our son. And in the past three years I have faced that also. These are painful memories to recall and tried to relate to you. My purpose is to urge caution in your deliberations on this bill. A person with a gun may encounter a stranger who seems threatening. But that stranger might very well be one. Who lacks cognition or capacity. I thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you for your public service. Thank you Mr chairman. Reverend Benny Johnson Reverend Johnson. Evan Johnson you'll state your name your time will begin. Yes for a minute Johnson founder president of the Arkansas stopped a lot of movement. I thought it back in nineteen ninety one because global systems almost going on in our state. We're gonna get to one issue that state the rain this bill into law. Now I'll I'll put it I think of him the General handed Bill. And I smell a rat if no objection thank you Rick. You know what I read this thing for your not so when is the. Bills if thanks in my most. No problem does this bill polluted to trade on Monday on the floor. All right well we'll get to Walker why he will bless. But don't want to go for this three policemen. That young man and the. With. We do not need to build method of the bill that I would think that with all this device this is going to all local. Thank you will bring the bill to you might Arkansas will not divide Arkansas. This bill my right you know all the races bill. Well. People of color. That a black. You know is that. My mom actually represent ask did the science with the American Bar Association. Eight six hundred. Thank you won't kill it would want me. It also deals that the person that did the student escalated the situation what is it about the. This is this is a farmer bill and I'm all set I've been upset. For more than. Your user will be able to sort of ballot over before you're going to say because I don't look like me. What. And I want to thank to the Committee we do not need to be. It's all right of bloodshed three. Officer of the flowers in front of your bill let that will fix. People like me. And I want to say. It closed now thank you both will call live wait list. I want to get for. I made a comment to me but while the first novel Under reporter Paul the roof with the public blow me away. Is that not right and I want to include the ballot. And all this bill. Per person did you kill of the bill to the pay the blood will be on your right. Thank you Reverend Johnson Natalie James. Natalie James. Republicans Democrats what's right what's not right whose president who's not. That's not the point here the point is someone bills that we don't belong. So they choose to proceed to attack my pregnant client. I do what I'm supposed to because I carry. I'm a licensee carrying concealed member that means I've been background checked twice because I'm a realtor and I have a hearing conceal. I tell him and I do my job. It off of my client stop or we'll shoot I give him a warning like I'm supposed to like come trained in also here because I had to protect myself in a realtor. He continues I'm fearful for my client lives the unborn client child's life and then I'm fearful for my life because I don't know what he's going to do after he gets done with them. I fire my gun my legal guardian. I have now. Taking this person's life. To protect to other laws and possibly a third one. I'm later arrested. House. With this bill it allows us to be arrested for protecting a third party is so many things in this bill that have not been part of our completely research the impact so many different people with so many instances and me being a black woman. The judge or the jury might not look like it because they're not my peers they might not be my peers so they're not going to think the way that I think in the discus the well she's a bad person we're gonna lock up and throw the book at her because that's generally what happens to disagree to black women. They're not going to see what I've done before they're not going to see that I'm a mother then I can see my to background checks they're not going to see any of that they're gonna see the case in front of them that I'm this lady who shot this person in because this bill says that it's legal to protect a third party which is that unborn child I must now go to jail. When not all cases are that couldn't drug. This bill is not thoroughly research they did not look at the impact of our the disproportionately. Affects so many different races people sexist I mean everybody is directly affected with that even you. That's horrible and if it passes today god help us all we're better than that. I. Left with the opportunity. To conserve my rights into retreat in that person retreats let us have that luxury of fortress that luxury of fortis that time before me the luxury of being judged because if the opposite happens and somebody brings me a direct. How are you gonna know what was actually the truth I'm not a threatening look in person. But somebody else might say you're black women you speak too strong your words are threat so I'm going to silence you. What happens then how are you gonna know what happens because I'm dead I can't tell my story I can't tell my son that's what this bill allows this bill is not thought our research with everybody in the magnitude in mine I will reiterate just a little bit of research that I did it while sitting here. That in any given month approximately thirty to fifty people across the United States I was a result of stand your ground. Our murder. Increase in firearms miss change your time is up thank you. George lunar. Sir George learner. Julian lot. Greetings member of members of the House represented Judiciary Committee I have Julian lot pastor and Maher in the county city of Washtenaw county Camden Arkansas I served as the president of the Arkansas black mayors association whose membership represents fifty seven municipalities and about four hundred and seventy thousand our cans of whom I speak on the hat having spent my life and service to our communities I stand an objection to S. B. twenty four stand your ground bill if passed as law this bill will have a dangerously negative and profound impact on the lives of our Kansans and the criminal and civil justice systems I'm validly it ties law enforcement hand and deprives victims of remit is by approved by providing basket immunity from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits to individuals who claim they were acting in self defense this bill allows individuals to be jury judge jury and executioner with little to no consequence for the action send your ground laws provide the perfect opportunity to increase gun violence incidences and harm minority groups and there are strong data and evidence to support this one twenty states would stand your ground laws were exam there was no evidence that passing such laws called determines for violent crimes however conditions did on average have an eight percent increase in the number of murders non negligent manslaughter after their adoption Furthermore studies have shown that leniency was more likely to be given to defendants when the victim was non white and the actions of the white defendants were ten times more likely to be. Ruled as justified if the victim was black. Overall seventy three percent of defendants who killed a black individual went free whereas fifty nine percent of those who killed a white individual went free gun violence calls the state of Arkansas two point eight billion dollars annually the passing of this bill will worsen an already burdened system Arkansas is the seventh highest state and gun related deaths cost associated with gun violence currently estimate eighty two point two percent or two point two percent of Arkansas GDP absorbing approximately nine hundred and thirty nine dollars for each tax payer each year any financial indebtedness and secured due to gun violence will only exacerbate conditions for the thirty five percent of our Arkansas Arkansas residents considered low income it is also likely gun violence will have what comes for the forty two percent of Arkansas residents who live and rule rule environments and geographical is separated from high gear to your health care centers as you well know several stand your ground cases of cast darkness over states highlighted by a media coverage that reflects negatively on all parties and created ill will among otherwise loving communities this bill for us as a matter of life and it will bring gun violence and lawlessness that is proven in other states with stand your ground laws on behalf of their Kansans mothers fathers husbands wives brothers sisters loved ones and your neighbors we implore you to vote no to Senate bill a twenty four to S. B. twenty four I appreciate your consideration of this matter and will make myself available for questions. I see no questions thank you of mayor lot for being here. Larry Lilly. Mister Lilly. Hello a my name is Solomon Burchfield and thank you for the opportunity to share briefly with you today I live in Fayetteville Arkansas I work on a daily basis with people who experience homelessness. Hi there are thousands of people in Arkansas who are unsheltered tonight. M. you may know that among folks who experience chronic homelessness there's a high occurrence of mental illness because we've really failed to give adequate mental health supports. A two people. You may think back over times you've seen people who were living on the street who may have behaved erratically may be based on ways that we can understand or we may have perceived as threatening. And there is a well known case in our state in Portland Oregon where a gentleman who was living on the street named Richard. One morning was outside of the. Strip mall in a lady was giving me some things to help in many into he he was having an episode and he threw a lint roller at her. In she cried out and owner of a tattoo parlor next door came out and. Try to help and he brought a telescopic baton and he ended up hitting Richard trying to driving off the property. And. The situation kinda escalated and Richard was off the property trying to come back on to get the rest of his things and if the shop owner had skills he would have been able to easily de escalate the situation he may have been able to help meet this person's need and had not gone any further but he didn't have the skills. And Richard trying to get back his stuff pulled a steak knife out of the trash bag he was holding and the owner of the tattoo parlor pulled a gun and shot and killed him. Knowing that he had the protection of. This. Standard ground writes that he had in in Oregon. In the two years before the incident there were five. A fatal shootings involving civilians were they appeal to the standard ground. Law infirmary of the five victims were homeless people. So when I think of this bill. Before you today I think of the thousands of people in Arkansas. The like Richard. Who I get to speak with every day who tell me people already think that I'm a danger they see how address state know that I live on the street whether it's a business owner or civilian or whoever they already have this stigma and are scared and we can't talk to me don't understand the behavior some of my friends. So I drove down from pay bill to ask you to not let this danger into our community removing the duty to retreat. It emboldens hotheads. And it endangers people who are experiencing homelessness thank you. Thank you Mister Burchfield signboard Evans. Good afternoon my name is doctor stared Evans and I'm the CEO of Arkansas support network I thank you for your time today I know that you all are tired I know that you're hungry I know that you've been here for a really long time and I thank you madam chair for giving the time to hear from our Kansans all twenty five of us I'm here today representing Arkansas support network as the CEO and I was the person who is responsible for ensuring that the people that we support and the people that work for us are given the opportunity to live meaningful lives in their community Arkansas support network is a disability service provider more specifically we are a community based disability service provider we believe in the value of every person that we support we believe that our communities and the communities that they live in are better because they are members of those communities and we are committed to support any and every our cans and that comes to us to receive services and because of that we support a high number of people who are dually diagnosed they have both an intellectual disability and a psychiatric disability you have heard today from the parents you've heard from siblings you have heard from children of people impacted by the folks that we support Arkansas support network supports directly about five hundred or Kansans that fall into this category and in supporting those individuals we support people who are non verbal we support people who have need additional supports in regulating their emotional interactions with the world around them and we support people that contribute in meaningful ways that you and I will never be able to to their families to their communities to the places that they show up in the places that they are. But I know first hand that the perception of threat that some of the folks that we support Clause to the people around them to people who don't know them is significant significant enough that would cause individuals to execute the the stand your ground permission to be able to use lethal threat I know that because I have worked in Arkansas support network for twenty one years I started when I was nineteen years old as a direct support professional and shortly after starting working in Arkansas support network within my first year there I was a direct support professional supporting a man who had autism who is non verbal we were leaving the grocery store which is stressful for me for him probably for you and he was having a hard time regulating himself with the overstimulation of the music that they play at the grocery store and the overhead speakers and the fluorescent lights and he started escalating and begin to hit himself it was my job as his direct support professional to support him to help him de escalate as I did that he began to hit me he was taller than I was he was bigger than I was he was a black man and I was a white woman and we were in that parking lot in a small community in Arkansas and it was my responsibility to support him I had to turn my attention away from that man to a bystander who saw what he perceived as a threat a gentleman who approached us who was very clearly arms and was very clearly dissatisfied with the situation that he saw and I had to de escalate that person and on that date at that. Time I am grateful that there was a duty to retreat it is a threat to some of the most vulnerable our Kansans for us to remove that duty to retreat I have been here two years ago to tell the story I will come back two years from now because it is so important for the people that are able to be here and sit in front of you that you are reminded of their stories and how important their stories are and I ask that you would vote no for Senate bill twenty four. Thank you Miss sevens. Tamera Bates. Tamara Bates. Thank members will have one other witness after this individual. Misstate you're recognized please state your name and your time will begin. Thank you all for having me here today be real brief because I know you all are hungry and my stomach was back there growing so may be real brief. Of. I would just at the first Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on January thirteenth and. In the being the first having the first opportunity to be before you know you legislators and really you know it's all to them and having them to you know just listen to your stories listen to stories of people that you're bringing on before you whose as everyone I may have mentioned they can't come so you bring their stories only on on their behalf so today I just want again just to re iterate and sheer you know some stories in some statistics breach the two six of why this bill will be a dangerous in daily harmful bill to the state of Arkansas and that you all should you know just reconsider. so stand your ground law because just pretty much a solution to allow private citizens to you know take the wheel at their own hands. So you should be the person to say Hey let me take this personalized. Because you're not god you're not a person who you know give life and you can't take life away so what gives you the right to take somebody life the way. Interesting NO you know situations can et seq escalate quickly you know become fade away or tree is it necessary to claim self defense even in public places you know who stays that you feel during you may just be having a bad day in. You feel that you need to write to stand ground but in most cases it's not always the right thing to do. It's so. S. say I've said before you know rethink do your research just don't allow all in of your buddies their colleagues to bring information to you that you have a research is still any thank yous somewhere the chair anything to vote on it. Thank due to research your constituents like our chances are counting on you will tomate this you know to you know represent is because there are a lot of people hands learning and the laws that are in your hands because you represent them so if you're gonna do something do it the right way late be the in a Representative or representatives that you know you talked about only use or need to do. In a letter saying that I'm just saying I'm asking each to you to put your partisanship aside late don't make this a democratic any damages Republic team I make this a human thing input on your more case analysts really in the the the the southern state the army Arkansas is the only southern state that doesn't have this law but V. the heroes to stand the in the the model in state to say that we don't need to stand your ground bill. In in close in. I moved here August of two thousand eleven which is what's a decade ago so I'm birth really archaisms of like welcome you to Arkansas but in the I came here to go to Philander Smith College and I have built my career here as a young professional and have grown as an adult here in Arkansas have may I have may Arkansas home for me so Arkansas is where my heart is it twenty eight years so I would have never thought that I'd be just sitting in a room representatives dishes here ma my sentiments in my concerns about this bill injures four others around me even like someone called well my friends in the back you know I got them to come out today because you know there's like you know we got to go see what's going on like if it wasn't for me they want to came so just bringing them to you know really understand what's going on it regardless of all the different issues like we all want to be safe we all want our family safe and we just want to have a good life. in that's pretty much you know all I have to say I just urge you all to really you know reconsider vote no and if you all have to lay really go to like sit down at the table easel food food laughter that all brings like good things to come about so this all I have to say thank you for your time. Megacentre re reconsidering thank don't you know allow this bill to them you know just take lives away thank you miss Bates thank you Asad Khan. Good afternoon. A my name is Asad Khan I'm from Jones rule. I am a physician board certified psychiatrist and child and adolescent psychiatrist. thank you J. Dalby and host members of the Judiciary Committee. I have served in Arkansas community mental health clinics for almost twenty years now I work with schools I work with judicial. justice systems. Sex offender program. a. Each resident doctors as I'm an adjunct assistant professor of psychiatry. As you deliberate on stand your ground bill. there be many reasons given. Not the least of which is its impact on minority communities but today I'm speaking as a physician. Who cares for people. With drummer. Substance use problem. Domestic violence. Rape. Children of divorce in addition to all the serious mental illnesses that I have to see every day. I'll give you three scenarios to consider. As we think about S. B. twenty four. Number one. Child custody case. I am dealing with it every day. Custody dispute happens children go from one building to another parent's home. Sometimes the kids are dropped off at the at the beautiful but sometimes there are. Exchanged on a neutral ground. Frequently there is animosity grudges resentment and jealousies could be jealousy against the new spot without a new lover and it is hate and resentment going on at that time. Nobody's at their best. Amber these a good and good good people but they're not at their best the decision making is not good at that time one bit and threatens the other does not de escalate. These these kind of situations can easily turn deadly. And I have had. Those goals with that. One can easily be threatened and say I stood my ground so it's not a tragedy just for. The one who kills and the one who get scared or maimed but think of the devastation and loss for those children who were involved in that situation. Number two. I deal with drug addiction. Again we're not talking about Gordon cord bad people you're talking about good reasonably good people who got involved in drugs or alcohol. And this started losing the judgment. I'll give you an example of methamphetamine and cocaine what does it do for us. Besides getting as high it makes makes us paranoid and suspicious. And that paranoia suspicion and hostility can. Last far longer. Then you will find it in their blood. Lab work or even in the he had a samples. So you can be without those drugs and still remain suspicious and hostile. It is happened that sometimes these people are out in the neighborhood they can be armed. And their judgments are off. They can have a job they can have their families but right now they're walking the judgment is off. And. They may have a date for the neighbor. Your dog pooped on my ground hello and that can escalate. And what will the S. B. twenty four bill is removed one more bad idea. One more barrier to that person acting out on his bed annoyed and hostile impulses. Laws are a deterrent even from a mental health services of people I deal with that I know and suspicion the our our deterrence. You will be moving this deterrence. For those people not these people who are technically dealing with it but common folk over there. You are removing the deterrence Dr Khan your time has expired thank you very much. Members that's all the individuals who have signed up to speak either for or against the bill at this time I recognize Representative Pilkington and senator Ballenger if you would like to come in close for your bill. Thank you madam chair thank you for everyone's patients well we heard all this testimony I really appreciate it. what I found fascinating was that somehow this bill going to some would take away our rights to defend ourselves and is actually bad for enhancing self defense and then on the other hand are they do expanded and create the wild west situation Arkansas how can those two things be simultaneously done at once it's simply not true. And fortunately consulate during this testimony these testimonies I've heard false information people using the castle doctrine or in confusing it with a stand your ground law that we're presenting here today and see have to really cut through the we to look at what this bill actually does with the law actually says. One thing that in here mentioned was about people who died trying to retreat. I'm sure no one on this committee has heard the name Tim McNerney. Timbuk ninety was a classmate of mine in Washington Jefferson. One day. We were at a bar. I live fifteen minutes early with some friends. He left little bit later with another friend. As you walk down the street where he was lawfully present not do anything wrong. Three individuals came upon him and his friend. The situation escalated their being wrong he merely retreated as he was supposed to. Beatty fell. And the three men beat him to death. My friend was doing what he thought was right which was to retreat. Instead he dot. I'm not a lawyer I work in healthcare. I love life. I'm doing this because I think it will help us keep people safe I had a situation where people were worried about. People on drugs on math. What it you know are they paying attention to the law they're not. The reason drugs and if me and my wife for walking down the street. And somatic hi Allen methamphetamines comes in and taxes. I'm not gonna take any risk. I'm gonna stand my ground. And I hope you'll give me a motion to do pass thank you. Members represented Pilkington is closed for the bill what are the wishes of the committee representing under what you're recognized. I can make a motion to pass. Members we have a motion to do pass represented under would would you like to explain your motion speak to your motion. I see no one else to his. Signed up to speak I'm sorry to speak to the motion. Members we have on the floor a motion to do pass on Senate bill twenty four all in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. The noes have it meeting adjourned.