Connecticut House Bill HB06564

Connecticut 2011 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/9/11
• Refer: 3/9/11
• Report Pass: 4/15/11
• Refer: 4/21/11
• Report Pass: 4/28/11
• Engrossed: 6/1/11
• Report Pass: 6/2/11

Caption

An Act Concerning Security Service Officers.

Impact

If enacted, HB 6564 will reclassify certain violent actions against licensed security personnel as a Class C felony, emphasizing the severity of such offenses. The bill seeks to deter assaults by establishing harsher penalties for those who engage in violence against security officers, thereby aiming to enhance overall public safety and reduce the risk of harm to individuals whose job is to protect others.

Summary

House Bill 6564 aims to enhance protections for security officers and other public safety personnel by amending existing laws regarding assault. The bill specifically criminalizes acts of violence against licensed security officers, expanding the definition of who qualifies as a victim under assault laws to include these professionals. This move is designed to promote the safety of those who work in security roles, ensuring they are afforded legal protections that recognize the risks inherent in their duties.

Sentiment

The sentiment towards HB 6564 has generally been supportive, particularly from law enforcement and security organizations, which advocate for stronger legal protections for officers working in high-risk environments. Proponents argue that the bill is a necessary step in acknowledging the contributions and dangers faced by security personnel, while critics may raise concerns about the potential for increased penalties leading to overly harsh consequences for certain actions.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB 6564 revolve around the balance between ensuring public safety and the risk of criminalizing behaviors that may arise in high-stress situations. Some lawmakers may question the extent of the penalties for actions deemed assault under this bill, arguing that certain situations may not warrant such severe classifications. The discussions indicate a broader debate regarding how best to protect those in service roles while maintaining a fair justice system for all individuals.