Search legislation

Most Recent Comments

1) Journal Statement by Senator Hoffman  by Admin002 on March 28, 2002 
I don't think that the member from the 14th District necessarily understood what I said. The reason I voted against the amendment is because in the spirit of bipartisanship, I would think that one would be considerate enough to share the amendment to let folks know what you're doing. If you want cooperation, I would share amendments. That is what I was trying to encourage.

The idea that we tie-bar all these bills to one super bill just means that you're going to have a long train, and if one goes down, they all go down. This Senate Bill No.380 is going to live its own life. Senate Bill Nos. 425 and 420 are already tie-barred together, and I think we have another tie-bar out there on another couple Senate bills dealing with this issue. If we want bipartisanship and cooperation, then we're going to have to share the amendments before they're offered on the floor for the first time. I think that that's being decent.
Reply

2) Journal Statement by Senator Scott  by Admin002 on March 28, 2002 
I rise in opposition to Senate No.380 for several reasons. This bill would limit the liability of entertainment forums and shopping centers by providing that a person could not recover damages of any kind for unlawful arrest and assault if the entertainment forum had reason to believe that the person violated the terms for admission or created a nuisance at the entertainment forum. While this bill would not prevent a person from collecting damages if security personnel used excessive force in handling a situation, any force that is considered less that excessive, even unreasonable, would prevent a civil action for damages. There was testimony in committee that if a security officer uses unreasonable force while confronting a patron, it could result in death or serious injury. Why would we limit the liability for conduct that may lead to serious injury or death?

I'm concerned about the overly vague and overly broad language contained in this bill. For example, creating a nuisance would mean a situation where the patron engaged in conduct that significantly interfered with the right of other individuals to view or hear the performance. Under this definition, I could be creating a nuisance for excessive cheering or banner waving at a sporting event. I'm concerned that this bill may result in a disproportionate physical response by security guards by allowing security guards to use unreasonable force to remove individuals from the premises if that person refused to remain in his or her designated seat.

The fact is that this bill would reduce accountability of owners of arenas and shopping centers, resulting in free reign for poorly-trained security forces like those who have been involved in injuring and sometimes killing patrons at these establishments. I refer to a handout that was handed to each and every one of you that says "Senate Bill No.380--Moving in the Wrong Directions."

Why would we provide protection for abusive behavior towards spectators at sporting events and concerts by passing legislation that could increase the risk of injury or death to residents of this state? For these reasons, I cannot support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote "no."
Reply

3) Journal Statement by Senator Young  by Admin002 on March 28, 2002 
The amendment that I offered that I requested support for on this bill would have required that a person employed as a security guard in an entertainment forum or shopping mall would have to receive training that would meet the standards promulgated by the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards.

I have pursued mandatory training for security guards for many years. During the 1989-90 session, I introduced legislation in the House that would have provided for a strict regime of training for such personnel.

In fact, with the passage of this bill, the need for mandatory training becomes even more acute. If security guards and their employers are going to be provided civil court immunity for injuries or death caused by their actions, we must ensure that these guards are properly trained so they do not present a threat to the public safety. For if the civil justice system does not provide adequate incentives to ensure security guards are not a danger to the people they are supposed to protect, it is incumbent on government to provide the needed regulation.

The Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards has had internal discussions regarding standards for training programs for some time now. I feel confident that this very professional organization would have been capable of developing the necessary standards for training quickly and effectively.

It's for this reason, that this bill does not contain those training clauses, that I voted "no."
Reply

View Full Conversation