Any laws or programs that reduce crime and cost with no public safety issues is good for citizens. Compelling testimony, using facts, was provided to legislators by an Iraq military veteran, who is now attending Stetson Law School, to exclude any violent or sexual offenses from "prearrest diversion" programs. Unfortunately, legislators would not amend the bill to remove violent or sexual offenses. If this bill passes, a person who committed a violent or sexual offense and completed a prearrest program, will pass a background check when purchasing a weapon since there is no arrest. Prearrest may be good policy (time will tell) for first time, minor, non-violent offenses. Is a violent or sexual act good policy? Why would legislators (some who agreed the bill has flaws) still move forward without amending this bill?