yet you don't get to meet the police on your best day very often if you don't call the police and see everything's fine just wanted you to know right if that doesn't happen. you. know there's a whole range of humanity out there with a whole range of different issues i mean it could be anything it could be a death in the family that can cause extreme emotional response or recall when officer lane approached the car george floyd talked about losing his mother and lost her in 2018 those those wounds still right there on the surface emotion it could involve a divorce finding bad financial news. mental illness mental health issues like drug and alcohol abuse all of those things can cause someone to not resist but just not be able to bring

themselves to comply at that moment at that time and this is nothing new they train for it they plan for it the prepare for it they have a policy on it right recognising persons in crisis you remember chief you're a dano took the stand he testified he testified that they have $4000.00 calls for service for persons in crisis every single year. this is nothing new there they're on a $20.00 counterfeit charge. to train for this they know about this oh george floyd certainly had his struggles and you know that the state put in evidence of that courtney ross testified that he struggled with the opioid addiction you know that and this is nothing new but the difference though on may 25 2020 the officer just wouldn't listen to him.

wouldn't look at the signs and recognize the signs of what he had prepared for in a reasonable officer and defense place with all his training and all of experience including that 40 hour crisis intervention corps subsequent refresher course should have known that and should have recognized floyd was trying to get into the car he's trying to work up the courage he said he'd come to 3 and he just couldn't do it so the defendant arrives on the scene. he surveys the scene he saunters up to the car. and he slips on his gloves. i'm not a reward for. doing all good to come. you know that you know it come

with album that i am going to be like that man really hard to take out the obviously you don't know what it's all about is not only with the gobi i'm going to have the real thing with me. i haven't got the boat would let everyone know i was going to be on a government run well we're not going to put out the boat that are going on all are over there i'm out of bed it's not my room i forgot how bright got you out. so they don't listen they just shove them into the car into that tiny backseat you saw the look on his face so look on george plates face when he glanced over into that car. looked like he'd seen a monster looking into that car clearly. has trained officer should have recognized that and understood at that moment at that time oh what is your goal we just were discredit called thinking model go. for dead go read take in information

assess the information reassess the information you consider what what's the whole what's the plan there for a $20.00 counterfeiting charge allegedly she very down to testify had generally don't put people in custody for that so why is it necessary to shove a car they made a judgment call they decided to show the car the predictable thing to happen happened right he just couldn't be in the back of that car and so they pull him out . pull him out. and watch what happens. they pull him out of the car. come on out who do you call god. on the ground. all right folks. to get him out of the car he is handcuffed he is on his

knees he is not going anywhere there are 4 officers there 4 officers and what did george floyd say once they pulled him out of the car thank you. thank you. you know a reasonable officer in the defendant's position at that time should have recognized and understood he wasn't trying to escape he wasn't trying to punch anyone stab anyone. was in trying to do that the problem was the back of the car just like george floyd tried to explain over and over the problem was the back of the car so if you can give them the benefit of the doubt but they made a bad judgment call and shoved him in the back of the car at least when he came out in the struggle it was over he was on his knees he was saying thank you doug no need it could have been over there. but what did they do they took him from this

position handcuffed on his knees they pushed him down onto the ground didn't need to not at all for what he's handcuffed. they pushed him down into what is you now know from watching the evidence in this case the problem recovery position. when he's down on the ground he's initially pushed he is literally in the prone recovery position on the side that allows the chest to expand and provides room for the lungs to expand and take in air so they can breathe. that is a step that protects against the known danger of positional asphyxia. and they have and there he is right there so then what happens after they take him

incredibly out of the recovery position and prone him on the ground for what the prone position is a transitory position it's a position you use to secure someone in handcuffs and when you're done with that you immediately roll them on their side. that's the position he was in probing him was completely unnecessary and this is where the excessive force yes. this is where the 9 minutes and 29 seconds start because they didn't just lay him prone they did not do that. they stayed on top. with a knee on the neck and a knee on the back and the defendant's weight on mr floyd pushing down with officer king adding to the pressure pushing down holding his feet officer lane holding his feet for 9 minutes and 29 seconds. that's when the excessive force

that's when the countdown began now. you need to report back take a look you've learned a lot about policies procedures and tactics you have to pull back and say. would but for the defendant's actions pushing him down. george later died that day. to drugs he just miraculously derive a dire drug overdose in that time. maybe it was the tail pipe maybe it was in large part maybe not use your common sense use your common sense believe your eyes what you saw you saw. now when i talked to you a little bit about the law. the judges already instruct. and.

it's necessary to go over this a couple of times you learn you've got me got to go to medical school here there's so many benefits to being injured. you've got to go to medical school you've got to free parking. fabulous pais now you get a little bit of a free law school education the judge gave you a preview of that we're going to we're going to go through that again. the he's going to give you a copy of those instructions you have them you get to keep those. and use those during your jury deliberations he told you that you know you have to decide these issues or you can do it the way you see fit i'll be making some suggestions us in the order i think you should to do things that might focus your deliberations just the conversation a little easier little more focused but you have these jury instructions and you're try i think it's important for you to follow the judge's instructions to the letter

the words and definitions of the judge gives you the mean what the judge says the. and know that the state is required to prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt proof beyond a reasonable doubt he read this to prove beyond a reasonable doubt as proof as ordinarily prudent men and women would act upon in their most important affairs and a reasonable doubt is based on reason and common sense not a fanciful or capricious doubt or beyond all possibility so reasonable doubt it's just as the name implies it's a doubt that's reasonable doubt based on reason and commonsense you as jurors are not required nor should you leave your commonsense at the courthouse steps as jurors you must rely on your concepts that's why you're here we need you to apply that standard to these facts and to to be a judge of the facts and apply those facts and findings of facts to the law and so

prove beyond a reasonable doubt it certainly is a high standard the highest it's a standard the state is has met here. and the state does not need to prove its case beyond all doubt it does not need to prove its case beyond what i'll call in reasonable doubt not required to prove beyond an reasonable doubt an unreasonable doubt is a doubt not based on common sense but based on nonsense and you're not required to accept nonsense you're not required to accept the notion that after the defendant kneeling on mr floyd for 9 minutes and 29 seconds in the dangerous prone position handcuff restraint pressing down on him that after that. is he was writhing in pain and suffering that that's not even the use of force does no force there because it's not likely to produce pain a witness testified. you're not required to believe something that just flies in

the face of common sense to believe that you would have to completely abandon all the notion of common sense not likely to produce pain you don't have to accept someone who says that you'd be better off asking the one. you're not required to accept the proposition that the car did it but the car killed churchill it you're not required to accept or to consider that it is the bystanders fault for distracting the defendant you're not required to believe this amazing coincidence that after this 9 minute 29 2nd pro her strain that at that point in time even though he was walking and talking even though he was breathing interacting with people that he chose that moment to die

heart disease and diet heart disease that common sense or is that nonsense. or that it was a drug overdose. you know that george floyd struggled with drug addiction and drug use you know that you know he had developed the requires a tolerance you know what the toxicology report says in terms of the levels and you know what the testimony was about. die of a drug overdose it's not commonsense that's nonsense believe your eyes what you saw happen half and half the defendant pressed down on george floyd to his lungs did not have the room to breathe dr toben told you that. dr smock dr rich the experts experts who testified you can rely on.

dr spock dr rich doctor. they'd like that commercial right they they know a thing or 2 because they've seen a thing or 2 and they know one thing or 2 dr toben knows a thing or 2. about how this works. so looking at the charges this is a little bit of a different layout to see in your printed jury instructions they're not intended to replicate the instructions completely but it's meant to be sort of a guide for you did look at the different elements in a particular context and so the the charge of murder in the 2nd degree murder in the 3rd degree manslaughter or the 2nd degree that the judge read you know what the losses those things are in the law breaks down these different charges into things

called elements 1st element 2nd element 3rd element 4th element and each of these has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. by the state in order for the defendant to be guilty of those charts you know those are the elements that are required as the only elements that are required you know again like other preconceived notions you may have some ideas you know from watching t.v. about other cases and shows and things you may have seen my other ideas as to what the law requires but again you know just like you know it's you know how it's lunchtime court judge tells you it's lunch time you know when it's time to go just as you say to go same thing you know what the charges are you know what the elements are because the judge tells you if you are so you need to follow. so talking about murder in a 2nd degree 1st the death of george floyd must be proved.

and then it must be proved that the defendant caused the death of george floyd and the fact that other causes may have contributed to george floyd's death does not relieve the defendant of any criminal liability it just does not. and for murder in the 2nd degree that the defendant at the time of causing george floyd's death was committing or attempting to commit assault in the 3rd degree that's a felony level assault under the laws of minnesota and salt show the defendant assaulted george floyd that he intentionally applied unlawful force to mr floyd without mr floyd's consent resulting in bodily harm the state has to show the state did you saw and that the defendant inflicted substantial bodily harm on george and that this act took place on or about a 252020 in hennepin county. so

as to the 1st element. that george floyd di was established that was established by the emergency room physician dr langfield george floyd was pronounced dead at the end up in county memorial hospital on the 252020 so that element is back and. in again you can consider these elements any way you want to consider my suggestion is that you consider him in the order as listed here murder 2 murder 3 manslaughter and 2nd degree and in order of the elements just because there's a lot here there are 38 witnesses who testified there are a lot of exhibits that were offered and it's easy to talk about everything at the same time. it really is but it will help focus your deliberations if you look at these different elements in were to have sort of

a logical way to focus your deliberations so you courage to do what you can do it anywhere you want. second element that the defendant caused the death of george floyd causations which is that which is that was causation here means of the defendant's actor acts were substantial causal factors substantial causal factor in causing the death he's criminally liable for all of the consequences of his actions that naturally occur including those consequences brought about by intervening costs the fact that other causes may have contributed to george floyd's death just does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability you have to find is the 9 minutes and 29 seconds of compression on his knee with his knees on his neck and on his back in held down was a substantial factor in george floyd's death. now

if there was a superseding cause then the defendant would be criminally liable superseding cause or those are causes that come after the defendant's acts and alters the natural sequence and that's and and is the sole cause of death and we don't have that here because we know how george floyd di. this is the use of force we talk about use of force. that's been defined by the different witnesses who testified looking at what happened from the point the knee went to the neck and back and the unlawful restraint the assault start and how long it lasted 9 minutes and 29 seconds. that's what george floyd that's what killed george would that's why you have believe your eyes. and reasonable force pinning him to the ground that's what

killed. this was a homicide. oh you heard this from forensic pathologist the experts you've heard this and their experts who weighed in you know dr langfield told you that mr floyd died dr baker ruled this a homicide told into the cause and manner of death the unlawful restraint and subdual by law enforcement what they did killed him told you that. dr tobin remember dr toben he told you specifically how it happened he walked you through that the. he told you how it happened and the other doctors who testified dr smock dr rich. dr isaacson they told you how it didn't have it. wasn't a sudden cardiac event was a heart attack wasn't a drug overdose wasn't any of those things i doctor told and came back and

explained it wasn't carbon monoxide. now so you know how george floyd died. and you heard us in that specifically you know dr tobin provided fairly extensive detail and was very clear that george floyd died as a result of a low level of oxygen as low level of oxygen cause of brain injury and arrhythmia which caused his heart to stop a sonic cardiac and that it's not that his heart disease and then didn't cause him to die is it was the low level of oxygen it was the that caused him to die. and we know that that happened we know that happened because the observed during the restraint 202421. lives or the observed an anoxic seizure

a telltale sign of oxygen deprivation dr toben tools and even dr fowler told you that an after mr flight experience a seizure he passed out after his post was hurt. that cardio pulmonary arrest that was the result of the police of dual and the restraint and the neck compression we know from dr toll than george floyd did not die primarily from a cardiac event as has been suggested now george floyd was not in perfect health sure he had narrowed arteries high blood pressure no question about that he was no question he was experiencing stress and even before the officers showed him on to the sidewalk unnecessarily to asli disproportionally but none of this caused george fleet's heart to fail did not his heart fail because the defendant's use of force the 929. that deprive mr floyd of the oxygen that he need that

humans need to live. and dr toben know because he is a pole monologist he's a lung doctor. he's a lung doctor he's also a respiratory physiologist the only person who testified able to calculate lung capacity one volume he could do that dr baker could do didn't do it he deferred to the pole and all just oh no this doctor told. dr fall or could do it he said he would defer to appall and ologist and dr toben who also happens to be a critical care physician he spent years treating patients treating patients in intensive care who are experiencing respiratory failure and doctor told been literally wrote the book on the subject and he was able to tell you right what this

looks like what he was able to observe what he was able to observe was oxygen deprivation was a fix. it was a 6 because under the conditions that mr floyd was being strange if it put him in. it cut off his oxygen it would have cut off oxygen of someone who is perfectly healthy anyone who's forces that were used in the situation involve multiple factors george floyd was handcuffed and had impaired arms and chest movement he was placed prone shug prone on the side walk the knee is pushing on his neck and back downward the pigment the force of the pigment being unyielding it was like he was in a vice then he was being squeezed in a vice in he calculated right between. children the defendant officer king pushing down on him proximately 90 pounds of

force and the position and the force combined such that it was if it was as if george floyd's left lung had been surgically removed that's how much of a reduction of air capacity there was here to the point that mr floyd was desperately trying to make space to breathe pushing his shoulder pushing his face against the pavement to lift up to give space to breathe his lung capacity based on dr tobin's calculation head just being in the prone position even heard some studies from the defense say you know prone position is dangerous dr toben disagreed he said that the lung capacity was reduced by 24 percent just by any prone position 43 percent when you consider the additional pressure a doctor told an opinion corroborate the police training and what the

police have known for 30 years that there's a danger in the proposition and the danger is positional asphyxia and the danger the worst thing that can happen with positional asphyxia is death. and it wasn't just the lungs the pressing up against the neck remember when you touched that it reduced the capacity of your flow such that it was as if mr floyd was breathing through a straw. and shallow breaths did not produce enough oxygen not enough oxygen could get to the longs. and that's what killed george floyd and here's what didn't. as the did this wasn't a sudden cardiac arrhythmia. after smock told you that dr thomas dr rich doctor told him they agree not a sudden cardiac arrest. that's not how this looks dr baker

no medical evidence of a heart attack. we heard from dr rich dr rich actually treats people who have heart attacks and he found there was nothing on his in his review and nothing in george floyd's heart to suggest that the death originated from the heart . nothing. you know over the course of this case you heard a lot of things that didn't happen and hypotheticals that don't apply you know why george what he died you know how he died you heard a lot about drugs you heard about his struggle with addiction some things you know george floyd is obviously not a perfect man who is no one is ok so you heard about drugs you heard about drugs in the car some pills in the car in the squad car in his car you heard questions

about izzy chewing gum does he have a pill in his mouth based on the street and that matters. because you know what his level the drug level was you know that from the toxicology or. if drugs are found in the car they're not in george floyd's system. good there's no point in talking about. let's talk about what was in his system and the toxicology report and you heard from dr isom schmidt. and what he testified was that george floyd spent all to norfolk no ratio that metabolite nor funnel that was well below the ratio of people who die from a fentanyl overdose is even below the median and george floyd's nothing fed a mean level that was 94 percent lower than the the group of for driving population for driving under the influence. and dr rich and dr spock they

treated positions who were under the influence of old fentanyl and methamphetamine and they tested these drugs did not kill george floyd. we know that he had a tolerance because he used drugs in the past and the experts all agree the video show that george floyd did not die the way someone who dies from offense and all overdose dots his breathing and didn't slow down. he didn't fall asleep he didn't go into a coma oh this looked nothing like a fatal overdose dr toben the only doctor in this case who actually calculated george floyd's respiratory rate and the best doctor to do so given his training and given his experience he stated the fentanyl in george floyd system did not to press his respiration it did. he did not die of drug use

us not only he didn't die of excited to hear you're about excited to hear. dr smock . who testified about excited delirium told you explained you he didn't george boy did not exhibit any of the signs of excited to area one of which being super super super human strength nonsense there's no superhuman strength no superhuman strength you know superheroes. impervious to pain nonsense you heard him you saw him. he was not impervious to pay it's not. parroting glioma suggestion that this tumor which is literally called an incidental tumor relatively rare maybe causes headaches at that that caused his death at that particular moment in time at that time at that place

after the restraint after the subdual after the 9 minutes and 29 seconds the tumor that causes headaches that killed him no that's that's just a story and dr rich specifically testified that he looked in george lee's medical records and he did not find references to headaches and you heard about carbon monoxide. the car killed. well dr tobin came back and explain this car which had a catalytic converter that was outside that was a hybrid and there's no evidence was even on that that did not kill. he explained carbon monoxide saturation level i'm sorry oxygen saturation level and based on his calculation of oxygen saturation level at 90 percent. at most there

could have been a 2 percent carbon monoxide same as anybody else same as people walking around talking breathing. it wasn't carbon monoxide that's just a story and they simply rock. you you don't have to be dr toben to recognize this. it's probably nice to be a doctor told that you don't have to be dr toben to recognize this you can see this with your own eyes you could see what happened but he couldn't breathe he said he couldn't breathe defendant was on top of on his on his back on his neck with his knees pressing down of course you saw his body just sort of deflated into the ground. past the point of consciousness there were multiple moments in time ladies and gentlemen multiple moments in time that things could have gone different and george floyd would have lived c.p.r.

if you left him aside recovery position in the 1st place or just placed him in the side recovery position shortly after the restraint would have died there on the force witness testified that putting somebody inside a car repositions pretty fast pretty easy thing to do that complicated. professors don't see just rotate them 90 degrees quick could've done that relieve the pressure which. could have done c.p.r. chest compressions. supposed to have a policy had a policy was supposed to follow. the duty to provide medically not just post a phone that in you actually supposed to use your training provide medically even dr fowler is critical no one started c.p.r. so that should have been done defendant knew how to do it he had the training he

knew better he just didn't do better george floyd didn't have to die that day should've died that day but for the fact the defendant decided not to get up and not to let out george floyd died. and these actions were a substantial factor in george waitstaff. and these actions make no mistake these actions were not policing these actions were an assault so as the judge instructed you for 2nd degree murder and it's actually very simple if you find that the defendant committed this 3rd degree assault while committing the salty cause george floyd's death defense guilty of murder that's the way felony word works in minnesota so the 2 elements of the

defendant assaulted george what is that assault is the intentional infliction of bodily harm upon another or the attempt to do so intentional infliction of bodily harm that requires proof that the defendant intentionally applied unlawful force to another person without that person's consent and then the act resulted in. intentional did it on purpose he did the thing on purpose. bodily harm physical pain. illness or impairment of a person's physical condition so again to be very very clear state does not have to prove that the defendant had an intent to kill george floyd.

this was an intentional act that you see before. he did this on purpose and that's clear he didn't again trip and fall and find himself there and this was also unlawful force officers are only authorized by law to use reasonable force and this was not reasonable force as all explained. and in george floyd clearly did not consent to having the defendant's knee on top of him for 9 minutes and 29 seconds when you hear someone gasping for breath calling for their mother begging you to get off what what how could you think anything else that he did not consent to this now the state does not have to prove what we don't have to prove about intent we don't have to show that the defendant intended to cause george played hard don't have to show that you don't need to find that the defendant was trying to cause harm or had the purpose to cause harm to conclude

that this was an assault you do not state doesn't have to show that the defendant intended to violate the law you don't have to show that we don't have to show that the defendant intended to kill him the only thing that the only thing about defendant's intent that we have to prove is that he applied force to george floyd on purpose that this wasn't an accident and it's pretty simple. if you're doing something that hurt somebody and you know it and you keep doing it you're doing it on purpose. somebody is telling you. they can't breathe and he doing it you're doing it on purpose what else is going to happen when you push somebody down on the pavement.

everybody knows this 3 knows what happens when you push somebody against the pavement. he learned this pretty early on. we learned this pretty early on. assault in the 3rd degree requires that the defendant inflicted substantial bodily harm and george floyd. substantial bodily harm meaning a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ. organs the lungs the heart. temporary loss of consciousness qualifies a substantial bodily harm certainly a permanent loss of consciousness would constitute. substantial bodily harm you look at this point in the restraint and you see the absence of expression the

absence of mushed muscle tension he's unconscious he's lost consciousness that's substantial bodily harm he did that that's his knee so when you consider the charge of 2nd degree murder try to break it down into parts you find in order defendant caused george floyd's death he did the state prove that beyond a reasonable doubt and at the time of causing the death the defendant committed or was attempting an assault in the 3rd degree and that's been proved beyond a reasonable doubt with those being proved in the venue a 2nd degree felony murder the defendant is guilty.

so going back and talking about murder in the 3rd degree you can see that there are some elements in common there's some differences we've already discussed the 1st element of the death of george floyd the substantial causal factor but the 2nd element and then the 5th element about the venue element all call it may 252020 head of county. so for 3rd degree murder. the difference for 3rd degree murder is that the defendant had to cause george floyd's death by committing an act that was imminently dangerous and performed without regard for human life again the state is not required for this charge either to show that the defendant intended to kill george floyd that he committed an act that was eminently dangerous and performed without regard for human life.

and it in a must prove the state must prove that the act was highly likely to cause death that the defendant acted with the reckless disregard for human life that this was a he was consciously indifferent consciously indifferent to loss of life that his actions could cause. the defendant's act was eminently dangerous to others it was likely to cause death to mr floyd and his if common sense in and of itself would not suffice the dangers of prone restraint of positional asphyxia has been known in the law enforcement community for about 30 years this is no common sense wasn't enough defendant's own use of force witness admits that and again when we talk about danger what is the danger its potential danger of positional asphyxia is

death. medical experts who know a few things know a thing or 2 right dr told and dr smock dr rich they agreed the defendant's actions created a high risk of death and the defendant consciously disregarded the loss of life that his actions could cause in and did cause he knew the risks of positional asphyxia due to this position everybody in law enforcement knows that he had other warnings not just from his training he had other warnings from people . right no problem. that's what i missed out on the ground i know right now from the guys who. began school at all right which you wish all the. best over brought you get cool right now from watch. that.

think that's totally broke your broke your bumper to bumper death row when you do you may stop breathing right now do you have well broken right it was plain in apparent to everyone who was there what was happening was going unresponsive he's passed out he's not talking what are you doing now we know that the defended chose not to listen to bystanders not to these biased but how about 2 fellow officers on scene. want to see. role models side staying put where we got lots of the defenses he's staying put. roll him on his side need roll him into the side recovery position he could listen to the bystanders he could listen to fellow officers he could listen to his own

training he knew better he just didn't do better. he knew that kneeling on somebody's snack in addition to positional asphyxia does the pressure is dangerous anyone can tell you that a 9 year old can tell you that did tell you that conscious indifference to difference. do you want to know what indifference is and sounds like. who. or. who were. talking you know really. it's not

a lot of. indifference leisurely picking rocks out of a tire. commenting about the smell of a man's feet we're pressing down grinding on as his voice slows and fades as he tells you when to cure me i can't breathe. my stomach hurts. my neck hurts. everything hurts. takes a lot of oxygen to complain. indifference. to defendant ever listen ever consider medical attention.

no one defended that decision to feel your to give c.p.r. not even dr fowler this isn't protection this isn't courage it certainly certainly is not and was not compassion it was the opposite of that. so back to the instructions and the elements of 3rd degree murder. when you're deliberating ask yourselves to the defendant cause the death of george floyd by an intentional act that was imminently dangerous to others absolutely the state prove that the defendant act with a mental state consisting of reckless disregard for human life a conscious indifference to the loss of life that the dangerous of the imminently

dangerous act could cause yes he did and you will find based on that what the state has proved the defendant is guilty of 3rd degree murder charge. so back to the charges talk about manslaughter and 2nd degree in again you can see that there are some elements in common the 1st 3rd is in common with the other charges so what's different about manslaughter in the 2nd degree is that the defendant caused the death of george floyd by culpable negligence coble negligence where created an unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm and again. not need to

prove the state does not need to prove that he intended to. that he intended to kill george foid culpable negligence intentional conduct that the defendant may not have even intended to be harmful but that an ordinary and prudent reasonably prudent person would recognize as involving a strong probability of injuries to others. you can look for yourself and you can see exactly what was happening the bystanders who were at the scene look for themselves and it was plain to them they took video you saw it it was plain to you strong probability of injury and with the defendant his specialized knowledge about the dangers of positional asphyxia and the common sense that if you put your knee on somebody's snacked there's a strong probability of injury he knew that to great bodily harm by the injury that

creates a high probability of death. permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or. the heart the lungs loss of consciousness. would an ordinary and reasonably person prudent person know that this is dangerous everybody who watched knew it was dangerous a 9 year old saw that it was dangerous the defendant knew exactly what he was doing because he was right on top he was right on top of him but his negligence goes beyond his intentional assault of mr floyd his negligence includes his failure to act in your custody means in your care in your custody means in your care there is

a duty to provide medical assistance that duty includes not only calling the ambulance for somebody else to do it means you have to use your knowledge your training as a 1st responder you're required to perform c.p.r. . it's a requirement he failed to do it he had the training he knew how to do it you've seen his training records exhibit 119 you take a look at all of the in services all of the hours. he knew what to do he just didn't do it he knew better he didn't do better. he wouldn't even let genevieve hansen be off duty firefighter. was going to do it himself to let somebody else do it but he didn't. have the knowledge he had the tools he just ignore so when you consider this charge that the defendant cause george floyd's death by culpable negligence or he took an

unreasonable risk consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm or you will find that element has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter guilty of all 3 charges so after all of this you have another question you have to address after seeing all of this finding the assault finding the murder was committed the manslaughter was committed you have another thing to consider and that is was this just ok was this fine is a so ok because the defendant is a police officer was issa authorize use of force was it justified was it justified. it was not

let's look at the instruction of the kind and degree force a police officer me lawfully use in executing his duties it's limited by what a reasonable police officer in the same situation would believe to be necessary and force beyond that is just not reason. you look at the facts that a reasonable police officer in the same situation would have known at the precise moment that the officer acted with force. looking at the fall of the totality of the facts and circumstances to see whether these actions the defendant's actions were objectively reasonable. was this subject to be reasonable. no we just saw the next instruction that the law does not provide an excuse for police abuse it does not let's let's start with the most basic of premises is that is that it's very

important that restraining george floyd in this manner on the ground prone handcuff knee on the neck knee on the back bodyweight on top of him start with the premise that that in fact was a use of force the defense called a witness who actually testified that was not a use of force because that is not likely to produce pain no no. not true likely to produce pain actually produced pain you know the problem with terms like superhuman superhuman strength you forget that those people don't exist humans feel pain human beings feel pain human beings need to breathe. don't accept any notion to the contrary you need to reject that testimony you need to reject it. and let's discuss the standard what

would a reasonable police officer do. what would a reasonable police officer do you don't look at this from george floyd's perspective. it's not what a reasonable victim you don't look at it from the bystanders perspective what would a reasonable vice. but under the law you don't look at it from the defendant's perspective either you look at it from the perspective of a reasonable officer and the evidence in this case has shown over and over that the defendant is not that officer because he did not act as a reasonable officer would. remember charles mcmillan. well the defendant explained his actions he explained the basis of his actions to charles mcmillan recall that. here's what he said there. are not that i don't know if i'm going to cry out for it as probably not.

that was his justification for using this level of force he's a big guy sizable guy he might be on something we have to control control is the restraint so that's the force has to justifications for the george floyd was big and that he might be on something when you know the standards you've heard the standards many times you know the difference between a risk and a threat officers are authorized to use force to respond to a threat they're not authorized to use force to respond to a risk anybody poses a potential risk big small in between everybody's a risk not everybody's a threat being large the act of being large it's not a crime it's not a risk sorry it's not a threat it's merely

a risk being on something being on something. south threat. it may be a risk but it's not a threat and force is not authorized against someone merely because they're on something and when questioned their force expert witness conceded that the combination of the 2 being large and being on something is not a justification for the use of force it just isn't that's not what they get to do. so the defendant's entire basis his explanation to charles mcmillan at the time at the scene right afterwards after he got up off of mr floyd tossed him on the gurney and walked away like it was nothing.

that was his explanation it's not good enough it's not procedure it's not the use of force policies not following the rules and we talked a lot about things that might have happened could have happened potentials hypotheticals talked about a lot of stuff that didn't happen. you need to focus on what did happen what did happen george floyd was not a threat he never was he wasn't resisting he just wasn't able to comply he should have recognized that he should have recognized that they do it all the time they had him him cuffed they had plenty of resources he had 4 officers they had a 5th one off in the distance he was handcuffed behind his back he was going anywhere . he wasn't doing anything he didn't need to be put in the prone position that's

a temporary position to facilitate handcuffing but the defendant was on top of him stayed on top of him grinding his knees into him pressing down on him continuing to twist his arm twist his wrist he would buck up against the handcuff of pain compliance technique without the opportunity to comply is simply the infliction of pain not a reasonable use of force. and that's not authorized by the minneapolis police department kneeling on top of someone on their neck in their back effectively they were using a maximal restraint technique effect remember the hobble the republic you heard about that they considered using it and thought about using it decided not to didn't need to. because it was a doing anything that would warrant it but if you're going to restrain someone like that completely holding him down the policy authorizes the use of the how will the rip hot. button do that

a policy about applying to republish again you have to put the person immediately in the side recovery position now why didn't they do that. the conduct didn't weren't they do it we didn't want to get a sergeant have to get a sergeant down there and do a force review it's morial day you heard that comment you talked about that so i just held in this dangerous position against policy. a reasonable officer would do that reasonable officer follows the rules a reasonable officer follows the training. force that carries a risk of death is deadly force and you recall the m.p. defense tactics and control guy a deadly force is just not authorized in the situation no force when someone is passed out on the ground unresponsive now.

you really can't even claim that mr floyd was engaged passive resistance at this point remember charles mcmillan kept saying get up and get in a car get up and get in the car and george lloyd said i will i can't. he doesn't even have the opportunity he's saying he'll get up and get in the car isn't given the opportunity to do this not resistance that's compliance at least an attempt to comply force must be reasonable it must be reasonable at the point it starts at the point it ends and all points in between officers are required to reassess the situation re-evaluate the situation to take in the information and react. defendant and do it. the defense has made the argument that the crowd justifying defendants use of force like the blame should fall on the bystanders for displaying concern over

a man's life what if this was a distress.