Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Use Of Force topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves criminal‑threatening bill after heated debate over use‑of‑force language
Summary
After floor amendments and a testy debate about whether the bill expands when force may be used, the House adopted HB 11‑08 (criminal threatening) as amended by roll call (193–144). Supporters said the measure aligns penalties with prosecutors’ recommendations; opponents warned it could broaden deadly‑force defenses.
The New Hampshire House on March 11 adopted HB 11‑08, a committee‑sponsored criminal‑threatening bill, following a contentious floor debate about whether the measure expands circumstances that could justify the use of deadly force.
Representative Terry Roy, speaking for the Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety, described the majority recommendation as a clarification that would allow prosecutors to charge threatening conduct appropriately. “The committee heard from the prosecutors,” he said, urging members to support the report and floor amendment package.
Opponents, including Representative Buzz Sherr, argued the language could widen the circumstances in which someone could use deadly force. Sherr framed the concern succinctly during a parliamentary inquiry: “If I know that this bill would permit somebody to use deadly force if someone is causing property damage, not a threat of bodily injury?”
Floor amendments were offered and adopted to address some of those concerns; sponsors said the changes removed references to property‑damage triggers and focused the statute on threatening conduct that would reasonably cause alarm. After amendment votes, the motion that HB 11‑08 “ought to pass as amended” was approved in a roll‑call vote recorded on the floor as 193 in the affirmative and 144 in the negative.
Why it matters: The bill changes criminal‑threatening statutes and was framed by backers as closing gaps that hamper prosecution of threatening conduct. Critics warned the statutory wording could unintentionally enlarge defenses or civil‑liberties exposure and urged caution. The adoption of floor amendments narrowed some sponsor language but did not end floor division on the bill.
What’s next: The adopted version proceeds to the next stage of the legislative process. Sponsors and opponents warned that judicial interpretation, potential challenges and final drafting in later stages will determine how the law is applied in practice.
Vote: House recorded the final roll‑call on the floor as 193 yes, 144 no.
