S.B. 63 Assault Modifications: transcript

Yeah. This is SB 63 came from a constituent that does a lot of MMA fighting and they do have choking techniques in MMA. And so this Is the constituent Actually, you, I'm not gonna say Okay. One way or the other. That's fair. That's fair. There's a few cages around my neighborhood. We, it's fun. Um, no, but, uh, this just, it's a common practice. It's part of their rules. Uh, there are methodologies in how to do it and they don't want to be doing anything illegal. And so this creates a very narrow exception for mutual combat when it is within the rules of the mutual combat whereby there can be some level of, um, choke holds. And so that is the bill.

Didn't you run this last year, Senator?

Yeah, it got it. It just didn't make it through the last day. I, it, it came through very late. I Remember hearing it and Okay. I'm just making sure I wasn't, Yep, same bill. Okay.

So, uh, some of you may recall that I went on a delegation to Mexico City last year during the session with CSG West. And I'm just bringing that up. Senator Brammer. 'cause I got to tour and visit an MMA facility where they train. It was kind of cool in Mexico City. So I, for a second, I thought you were going to reveal your Lu Chador identity. No, but I have seen that Jack Black movie several times. But anyway, uh, nacho Libre. Okay.

So I'll make a motion to recommend favorably SB 63.

Thank you. And I want to thank, uh, Representative Thompson for letting me swap in in order real quick. This one's been a, uh, non-controversial bill. It ran last year. It, it died on the board. I started it too late. Um, what this does is it changes a definition, or it actually just supplements the definition with regards to choke holds. I have a constituent that does MMA fighting and they have choke holds and MMA fighting, and they don't want to be doing it in a way that is illegal. And so essentially what it says is if both people are participants in the fight, and it's part of the common rules that's not involved in a choke hold, that's just part of an MMA type of fight. And so it's a, it's a very small modification, but it is one that, that is becoming more and more popular in terms of, uh, just as MMA fighting has become more common. And so I'm open to any questions on that? Okay. So I have a real question. So say, yeah, this is gonna be funny maybe, but, uh, so say you employed someone who's an MMA fighter in a personal protective detail capacity, and they used a choke hold on somebody That wouldn't apply. They have to both be in the, uh, engaged in it. Like they both, they have to be mutual combatants. They can't be one in and one out. And so, so in this scenario, Mr. Attorney, if they, uh, counseled, I should say, if they did that in the performance of keeping your family safe, would that be a problem? Would they be charged? It could. I mean, normally that would be a self-defense thing. It wouldn't be under this part of it that, that would have to be in, in self-defense. And so, uh, this doesn't contemplate that. Um, this only contemplates if they are both voluntary participants in the same activity, and it's a common practice as part of the rules of that activity.

Dan Strong for CCJJ and sentencing commission. We reviewed this bill last year and this year, and think it's a good policy. Appreciate, um, working to Senator Brammer, working to, you know, dial this in so that we're not making conduct illegal that, uh, is part of a sport. So thank you.

This year? Occasionally, but I'm getting different signals from behind you. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. I move that we favorably recommend SB 63 assault modifications.

Um, you know, other than the sponsor being slow last year, it seems like he's done good work on this and it's good policy. Yeah. He's getting better over there. And I, I do appreciate that too.

Uh, I mean, it seems like this is a quick, easy fix. Um, that was like the shortest that I've ever heard Senator Brammer talk. Yeah, I agree. Which I think Shows, shows that this feels non-controversial. In order we have a motion, uh, being that this is the shortest we've ever, any of us have ever heard Senator Brammer give a speech on Senate Bill 63 to put it on a consent calendar.

This was brought to me by a constituent. It's a very minor modification on, uh, we have a lot of people who participate in mixed martial arts and as part of mixed martial arts, it is oftentimes, uh, strangulation is actually part of the sport, but it runs a little counter to our strangulation statutes. So this creates an exception that when you are in mutual combat, and it is part of the official rules, that there is some allowance for strangulation. It's kind of an odd, odd way, but we don't want to create, uh, criminals where we're not trying to. And so with that, I'm open to any questions on it?

Thank you Mr. President. Uh, question for the sponsor if Yeah, agrees. Senator Brammer, will you yield? Yes, I will.

Thank you. Um, you know, the, that bill was, um, that we passed in 2020, I believe it was, uh, a lot of work. And it was one of the very few bills where you have two Senate sponsors. Senator Vickers and myself were the sponsors of this bill. So I, it was a delicate balance. There was a lot of work done between all the stakeholders and law enforcement. So I'm trying to understand, uh, what the problem is or if there's a specific case where we're now having to review something that was work with hours and countless hours via Zoom, because we were not meeting, we were in shutdown and we had all the sheriffs and police. And I am just trying to understand what the problem is. So if the sponsor can ex explain what's happening with the, the current statute.

Yeah, it, Senator Brammer, It's not necessarily that there's a prosecution related to it, but it's related to whether or not within the normal rules they can apply those within Utah, um, in tournaments, uh, that are applied everywhere else. And they're just trying to make a narrow exception related to that. This is a bill that went through last year and it was, I think third on the board. So everybody's already voted for this once and, and we're just trying to get it over the line this time. It was unanimous throughout, uh, the year last year. But, but it's related to those, uh, making sure that the tournaments can hold their, their competitions without having to change their rules due to Utah statutes within their competition.

to be clear, will this only apply for sports? Mr. Chair? Mr. President.

Senator Brammer? Yes.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Yeah, the only summation I would have is, and I think that it's a, it's, we wanna make sure that it's very narrowly tailored. That this is not an excuse to open up the door for domestic violence. We've worked very hard to achieve that balance. And so if you look at, uh, lines 41 through 46, you'll see that the exception is really limited, um, within a competition or practice for competition environment where everybody is on board and, and actually participating and it's part of their rules. Um, I I don't see a way for this to be opened up to domestic violence. If there is a way I am open to changing it so that it could never be that. Because, you know, part of the reason why we did negotiate this, the strangulation statute was because it wasn't quite working to capture all the domestic violence. And, and that is the last thing I want to do is open it up to any type of concern that way. We're really just trying to make sure that that, uh, that physical sports that involve mutual combat are not captured under the criminal statute. And so that, that's the point of the bill. And with that, I'll, uh, I'll, uh, move the question.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill says that a choke hold when it's used in a sporting activity is not a misdemeanor. That's it.