HB160. Castle Doctrine Hearing Jan, 29th 1:30pm room LOB 204

[Seth]

Right, baby steps. 

[BrianS]

I read something that the NRA/GONH doesn't think this bill goes far enough and wants it amended?

What I got:

Unfortunately, under this proposal, a person must still prove that he/she was unable to retreat from the attack thereby putting the burden of proof on the victim.  THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.  The burden of proof must rest with the state, otherwise the bill could prove to be pointless.


In the face of a criminal attack, law-abiding citizens should not be forced to retreat from any place where they have a legal right to be.  Victims of crime should no longer have to worry about being arrested or prosecuted if they use force to defend themselves or their family.  New Hampshire needs to stop putting the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of the law-abiding.

I'm with the rest of you.   Better to have this bill passed as-is than to have it shot down entirely.

[Seth]

I read something that the NRA/GONH doesn't think this bill goes far enough and wants it amended?

What I got:

Unfortunately, under this proposal, a person must still prove that he/she was unable to retreat from the attack thereby putting the burden of proof on the victim.  THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.  The burden of proof must rest with the state, otherwise the bill could prove to be pointless.


In the face of a criminal attack, law-abiding citizens should not be forced to retreat from any place where they have a legal right to be.  Victims of crime should no longer have to worry about being arrested or prosecuted if they use force to defend themselves or their family.  New Hampshire needs to stop putting the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of the law-abiding.

I'm with the rest of you.   Better to have this bill passed as-is than to have it shot down entirely.

--edit--

Never mind  : . 

[rowland]

Most of the questions came from two Reps. Rep Welch asked lots of intelligent questions. Rep Pantelakos asked questions of varying quality hinting at an anti-liberty bias. She kept asking for concrete examples which seemed fair.

There were an awful lot of speakers. Some of them were damn good. The testimonies of crime victims were quite moving. I expect to get a lot of good videos out of this footage.

There was a very strange gray haired woman from the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union. She seemed to have some issues with men. Eventually she got around to talking about the bill but I couldn't tell if she was for it or against it.

There was a lawyer from the Attorney General's office who explained the current law in a lengthy and disingenuous manner. Her name was Anne Rice I think. I kept looking at my printout of 627:4 and getting steamed. Finally I wrote "She's lying!" on my printout and held it up. I got chastised for that.

After that several speakers made a point of refuting her.

There was an old guy to my left who kept falling asleep. He said it was the same old arguments from last time being rehashed.

The police came out against the bill. I couldn't quite follow the speaker's argument. Maybe it was over my head. Or maybe it didn't make any sense.

A trial lawyer came out FOR the bill and cited many examples where citizens had been prosecuted for defending themselves or even THREATENING to defend themselves. So Pantelakos finally got her concrete examples. I wish I could have grabbed all of that but my camcorder battery died before I noticed and I had to swap in a backup battery.

I got called last. Serves me right I guess. I made a point of stressing how indefensible Lynch's veto was. This was the main point left over that others hadn't hit home.

[ny2nh]

Most of the questions came from two Reps. Rep Welch asked lots of intelligent questions. Rep Pantelakos asked questions of varying quality hinting at an anti-liberty bias. She kept asking for concrete examples which seemed fair.

There were an awful lot of speakers. Some of them were damn good. The testimonies of crime victims were quite moving. I expect to get a lot of good videos out of this footage.

There was a very strange gray haired woman from the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union. She seemed to have some issues with men. Eventually she got around to talking about the bill but I couldn't tell if she was for it or against it.

There was a lawyer from the Attorney General's office who explained the current law in a lengthy and disingenuous manner. Her name was Anne Rice I think. I kept looking at my printout of 627:4 and getting steamed. Finally I wrote "She's lying!" on my printout and held it up. I got chastised for that.

After that several speakers made a point of refuting her.

There was an old guy to my left who kept falling asleep. He said it was the same old arguments from last time being rehashed.

The police came out against the bill. I couldn't quite follow the speaker's argument. Maybe it was over my head. Or maybe it didn't make any sense.

A trial lawyer came out FOR the bill and cited many examples where citizens had been prosecuted for defending themselves or even THREATENING to defend themselves. So Pantelakos finally got her concrete examples. I wish I could have grabbed all of that but my camcorder battery died before I noticed and I had to swap in a backup battery.

I got called last. Serves me right I guess. I made a point of stressing how indefensible Lynch's veto was. This was the main point left over that others hadn't hit home.

Rowland -

I really do NOT want my testimony to be broadcast on the internet.

Tammy

[bill_mcgonigle]

Thanks for the play-by-play, rowland.

There was a lawyer from the Attorney General's office who explained the current law in a lengthy and disingenuous manner. Her name was Anne Rice I think. I kept looking at my printout of 627:4 and getting steamed. Finally I wrote "She's lying!" on my printout and held it up. I got chastised for that.

I'm very interested in seeing this part of your video.  We can't have the AG's office misrepresenting law before the House.

I really do NOT want my testimony to be broadcast on the internet.

I thought we were working to get government proceedings *more* exposure?

[J’raxis 270145]

There was a lawyer from the Attorney General's office who explained the current law in a lengthy and disingenuous manner. Her name was Anne Rice I think. I kept looking at my printout of 627:4 and getting steamed. Finally I wrote "She's lying!" on my printout and held it up. I got chastised for that.

I got to watch her do this on a weekly basis last year, when I was tracking several bills in CJ. She’s a master at it.

[BikerBill]

There was a very strange gray haired woman from the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union.

Claire Ebel, I'm guessin'. She's libertarian on all the things one would expect the ACLU to be with us on. Plus the stuff one would expect the NHCLU to be with us on...

There was a lawyer from the Attorney General's office who explained the current law in a lengthy and disingenuous manner. Her name was Anne Rice I think.

She's the standard evil minion from central casting, in my experience.

[Seth]

There was a very strange gray haired woman from the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union.

Claire Ebel, I'm guessin'. She's libertarian on all the things one would expect the ACLU to be with us on. Plus the stuff one would expect the NHCLU to be with us on...

While I know this wasn't a gun bill, her comments seemed rather anti-gun.  I was under the misimpression that the NHCLU was pro-gun.

She stated that the bill was about testosterone and young men were basically not going to be able to resist going around killing people if this law was passed.  Andrew deflated that comment masterfully when he sat down.  He started his testimony of by saying, with a straight face, "First of all, I'm raging with testosterone so if I get up and, you know, kill someone or something, I apologize."  It drew laughs from the crowd and showed the silliness of her statements.

Btw, it was either the asst. AG or one of the police officers that spoke that said this bill would mean that a person could use deadly force in response to ANY level of force.  I did correct that in my testimony, as the bill only talks about violence in the commission of a felony.

[Seth]

I really do NOT want my testimony to be broadcast on the internet.

I thought we were working to get government proceedings *more* exposure?

If I were Tammy, I wouldn't want that on the internet either.  It was rather personal and emotional.  I appreciate her doing it, but I know it wasn't easy and her wishes should absolutely be respected.


Unrelated, Evan N drafted an improved bill and gave it to each member of the committee.  That was great, since many people were complaining about the language without providing alternatives.  His might've been the most helpful.  Ryan M was short and to the point and very effective.  Kate and Tammy were also very effective.  Penny D was very effective at deflating one of the rep's arguments that the legislation wasn't needed because no one had been prosecuted for defending themselves...she made it very clear that that wasn't true, as she's personally defended a number of those cases.  Eli got the attention of the committee too.  A lot more people had great testimony, but those are the ones that stick out to me. 

[BikerBill]

While I know this wasn't a gun bill, her comments seemed rather anti-gun.  I was under the misimpression that the NHCLU was pro-gun.

Well, don't expect miracles... (I believe there's a snippet of her recommending mandatory vaccinations in one of my hearing videos)

She stated that the bill was about testosterone and young men were basically not going to be able to resist going around killing people if this law was passed.  Andrew deflated that comment masterfully when he sat down.  He started his testimony of by saying, with a straight face, "First of all, I'm raging with testosterone so if I get up and, you know, kill someone or something, I apologize."  It drew laughs from the crowd and showed the silliness of her statements.

Seriously? That's just funnier 'n hell. And awesome.

Btw, it was either the asst. AG or one of the police officers that spoke that said this bill would mean that a person could use deadly force in response to ANY level of force.  I did correct that in my testimony, as the bill only talks about violence in the commission of a felony.

Good on ya. It's funny how they can read so much that just isn't there into a bill that challenges their unintended monopoly, yet just can't seem to conceive any unintended consequences in so many others...

[ny2nh]

I really do NOT want my testimony to be broadcast on the internet.

I thought we were working to get government proceedings *more* exposure?

If I were Tammy, I wouldn't want that on the internet either.  It was rather personal and emotional.  I appreciate her doing it, but I know it wasn't easy and her wishes should absolutely be respected.

I do not regret testifying. I actually had a completely different testimony draft written until I realized that as I listened to the committee, that they weren't really understanding what it is like in that moment when you are literally scared for your life. That's when I decided that I might be able to give them a little insight. It was far harder for me to talk about than I expected. I think it was effective simply because of the looks on their faces as I spoke.

When I got home I thought about this and realized that I testified to have an impact of those committee members - not to impact the entire internet. As Seth said, it IS very personal and I would prefer to keep it that way. Not broadcasting my testimony will have no negative effect on anything.....except me. This isn't about transparency of government, this is about respecting someone's request to leave something very personal off the internet.

In my opinion, if there was someone who testified in opposition who also shared a very personal situation, and they requested that it not be broadcast, I think their wishes should be granted. This isn't just factual or opinion testimony. Again, maybe unless you've been in the situation you cannot understand.

If this is broadcast, I think there will be times that I will have to refrain for testifying if I see that someone - someone on the same side as myself - is recording. And I think others might do the same....and that would seem to be a waste.

I would appreciate a reply from Rowland that my testimony will not be broadcast.

[rowland]

This issue has arisen before. So far I usually get notice of the objection before I've had a chance to post anything. To be on the safe side I am adopting the following policy:

Any testimony that seems to have a lot of emotional content I will not publish without express consent.

I may err sometimes in judging whether a segment has too much emotional content but in the case at hand it's clear cut.

I will also refrain from putting up ANYTHING from Tammy without her express consent.

[ny2nh]

Thank you Rowland.

As far as judging whether something is too emotional - the person testifying will probably let you know.

For the most part, testimony is about facts and opinions. It's when it starts to get beyond that where discretion comes into play.

Thanks again.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Interesting issues raised, and a good discussion to have.

If this is broadcast, I think there will be times that I will have to refrain for testifying if I see that someone - someone on the same side as myself - is recording. And I think others might do the same....and that would seem to be a waste.

I don't have a thesis to present, but some thoughts:

Does the committee audio and/or video record the testimony?
Would our process be different if there was CSPAN-NH?  Does CPAN change the way federal government happens?
Rowland is a kind and considerate fellow whom we can make feel guilty if he acts up; if there were an unknown videographer at the hearing would folks likely temper their testimony?