what the winds will be monitored over the coming days as investigations continue into the source the origin of this massive fire on table mountain a monitoring group in myanmar is warning the military will continue to torture and murder pro-democracy activists if the international community doesn't act the assistance association for political prisoners made the plea to state television broadcast images of 60 taney s with signs of what it called harrowing abuse meanwhile supporters of a newly formed pro-democracy government rallied in darwin on sunday the national unity government says it should be included in crisis talks with neighboring countries it's criticised an invitation issued to issued by the regional bloc asked for the military their leader to attend the special summit in jakarta on saturday. credit virus infections over its record levels in india nearly 274000 cases were confirmed on monday and more than 1600 deaths the government has announced

a weeklong curfew in the capital region of delhi and britain's prime minister has just cancelled his visit to india that had been planned for next week victoria gate and he has more. india is in the grip of the 2nd wave of cave 19 and nowhere is that being felt more than its hospitals there are shortages of beds oxygen supplies and medicine adult to say this time they've seen a change in who is being admitted to hospital what we're seeing and this is all an indoor. personal experience is there are younger patients who are being admitted into hospital. and are more sick than the. disease that young patients usually have which is my moderate. india reported 275000 new cases on monday that's the highest daily tally in a country that's now the 2nd worst affected in the world. scientists say a new variant with

a double mutation may be driving off infections in most cases we've only seen one area of the virus mutating from the original virus in this case we have 2 separate me taishan sites which is really concerning because as you know you know every time that we have a mutation we're worried about increased transmissibility increased threat of death and lack of ability of our back scenes to work despite the rising cases political and religious gatherings are continuing in many places last week 3000000 hindu pilgrims bathed in the ganges river for the con mela festival and millions more voted in local elections in the state of a pradesh. i think the guard was let down are just by indians but by indian leaders massive election rallies were held. and subsequently the matter of him don't pester will of whom all want to be doing 2 words

massive storage in the city of ghaziabad the creditor off full says some families had to cremate their relatives on the street and with a new variant with a double mutation to contend with india faces many mood difficult days ahead victoria gate and be al-jazeera. well let's take you back to minneapolis in the u.s. where the closing arguments are now being put forward by both the state and the defense in the derek chauvet trial john 100 is our correspondent he's following events for us there is a slight recess as we know job for the moment we think that the state hasn't quite rested its case yet on the prosecutor steve it will talk after that recess we've been talking about you will do the processes of what's where we've got to now one of the things that was made very clear in his final statements to the jury was the definition of the clarification of what 2nd the 3rd degree murder and what 2nd

degree manslaughter is finally new odds but they're very clear. they are indeed and they're one charge the prosecutors of course most wanted that highest charge that 2nd degree murder and that one is very simple. in that one the defendant has to have caused the death of the victim in this case george floyd and he has to have done it wall a soul to the victim that's why you heard stephen sloan shyster go on at some length to explain that this was an assault it was an assault because it was an excess of force and that it went on even if it was not an assault at the beginning and he went on to explain that once george floyd was compliant that was no longer assault once he no longer had a polls again that became an assault or at least continued the period of

as soul. and there is a lower threshold for each of the other ones in the prison terms that are recommended for these are significantly different so for manslaughter for instance about 4 years for the top charge of 2nd degree murder it is around 40 years there is some leeway for the judge. to give bad. because this is a police officer he doesn't have a significant record he has not been charged with similar crimes in the past. the judge could give any sentence he wants but that's of course down the line there would have to be a conviction for that to happen but stevens was very carefully walking through those charges because as you can imagine these jurors come from all 'd kinds of backgrounds and they might not really have the means to understand it it's difficult for those of us who are trying to walk people through it so they really

need clear instructions and in their deliberations they will probably repeatedly console these charts so it was wise of the prosecutors to come out with that in short form because the jury can use that while they're making those decisions and they can charge him with one to all 3 of those charges as my understanding and of course steve sort of chief well the chief prosecutor was very clear in the way that he wanted to sort of to to dismiss any of the. misinformation when it came to the issues of whether. there was a cardiac arrest or whether that was a tube or whether it was a carbon monoxide poisoning which was sacked as according to the defense that could have led to george floyd's death gad step by step with video with visual aids and with the host of medical expertise that was brought to the

witness stand through it all to one side. he did and at one point he almost laughed it off saying he decided on this day at this time to die of a heart attack. you know the point he points out that one of the theories was that carbon monoxide from the car was the problem. if you just get straight back to the cold will go back to. the defense lawyer closing statements everything else and let's just listen to what he is going to say and every one of you for your attention and service history. i'm a pall i'm going to apologize if i get a little long winded because i get one bite at the apple here the state has an opportunity to rebut my statement after this there is so very much we need to cover there are so very much we need to talk about and it is all important.

before i begin my review of the evidence in this case i would like to address 2 very crucial points of law and they were touched on by the state the presumption of innocence and what proved beyond a reasonable doubt. the presumption of innocence the defendant is presumed innocent that's the starting point he's presumed innocent of these charges and this presumption remains with him throughout the course of the trial the presentation of the evidence throughout the course of your deliberations until and unless the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant does not have to prove his innocence we talked about this in jury selection we talked about the starting point the defendant

doesn't have to try to catch up he started at the presumption of innocence. proof beyond a reasonable doubt here's the definition that the judge just reggie proved beyond a reasonable doubt is such proof as ordinary prudent men and women would act upon in their most important affairs it reasonable doubt is the doubt that is based upon reason and common sense it does not mean a fanciful or capricious doubt nor does it mean beyond all possibility that. the law recognizes 3 standards of proof. the preponderance of the evidence is the 1st and lowest standard clear and convincing evidence is the next year and the 3rd standard is proof beyond

a reasonable doubt and the way we lawyers sometimes illustrate what these 3 standards mean is there to the scales of justice. the scales of justice equally back. when you apply the standard of the preponderance of the evidence it's also called the scintilla of the other it's a single grain of sand tips the scales in the favor of one party or the other. and this burden of proof is used in many civil cases somebody if the state wants to take away your driver's license for example that is the burden of proof that the state has in that type of a case they have to just add ever so slightly convince the finder of fact that their evidence supports their action. the next standard

is clear and convincing. and that's pretty self-explanatory right it is clear evidence and it convinces you the finder of fact if the action is correct this is the standard of proof that is used if the state wants to take away your children clear and convincing evidence it tips the scales more in one from the favor of one party over the other the highest standard in this country is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. proof beyond a reasonable doubt essential it with the state has to convince you is that there the evidence in this case completely own lemonades any

reasonable dollar or in other words leaving only a reasonable doubt capricious fanciful capricious style capricious means unpredictable fanciful space aliens flew in inhabited the body of their children and cause this stuff that's fancy beyond the reasonable doubt it is the highest standard in the law doesn't mean beyond all possibility of doubt because i suppose species ilene's may have been inhabiting his body but that's obviously fanciful appreciates. so this these 2 standards the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt work in concert with each other you start with the

proposition that mr chauvin is innocent of these charges the state has to advance substantial evidence to convince you that the only doubts that are remaining are on reasonable doubts. as you analyze the evidence in this case you would simply have to find that any defense that has been advanced is unreasonable that's i mean that's what this standard is all about. i want to take this opportunity also to talk to you about the importance of reading the entire instruction because i've seen you know and lawyers and i'm going to do it too right we pick and choose those

things that. help us make our case and help us argue our case that's our job as lawyers is to point out words and phrases within the instructions that make a difference in the case and to take that evidence and presented it to you in such a way that it supports our proposition that's what we do that's why you are instructed that if your memories of the evidences differ and if your are the judges law is what the plots but take the time to carefully read the entire instructions. throughout the course of this trial you've seen us do this right little snippet. second here a 2nd there a screen shot here a screen shot there you need to review the entirety of the evidence in this case

during the course of your deliberations as well and i can tell you that some of the videos that we've seen there much longer than what was presented in court there's additional information and you're going to see some of that as we go through this case today so take the time and conduct an honest assessment of the facts of this case compare it to the law as the judge instructs you and the entirety of the law that's why the instructions tell you consider the instructions as a whole. i've said i've told you that lawyers like to present evidence that favors them. but we have to be intellectually honest about the evidence we have to present it in an honest and intellectually cohesive and coherent manner and i have to address

something that i think is important and i think it is a prime example of what i am asking you and what is your obligation to do to look at the evidence in light of all of the other pieces of evidence. so you heard during the testimony of dr fall or that one of the things that he considered is the possibility that carbon monoxide was present and could have contributed to an environment that created oxygen deprivation you've heard that test. in rebuttal to that testimony the state brought dr toben back and he told you we can completely disregard that we know as a fact we know conclusively that mr floyd did not have carbon monoxide because his

oxygen was saturated to 98 percent and you just heard the state say just like i am right here right so it stands to reason i could get up in front of you and i could argue to you. we know this wasn't a spec see action because george floyd had a 98 percent oxygen level how could he have been a spic ca did at the hospital with a 98 percent oxygen. but that's not intellectually honest it doesn't stack up against the rest of the evidence because of what we know right we heard the testimony of seth brad and. and derek smith the paramedics we heard the testimony of dr ninan found they came in and they said they began resuscitative effort efforts they introduced oxygen and oxygen supply we were

there their manual the breathing for him there really oxygenating his blood so when you look at that piece of evidence when you look at a piece of evidence like that you have to compare against all of the other evidence because you can't come in and say george for on one hand george why died of a 6 year but he has a 98 percent oxygen. his blood is oxygen. then it is stands to reason the opposite is true as well you can't come in and say i can conclusively prove that mr fly didn't have carbon monoxide in his blood because he had this high oxygen saturation you test one statement against the evidence of other people and you compare that is what you as jurors are obligated to do and

what i am asking you to do compare the evidence against itself test it challenge it compare it to the law read the instructions in their entirety start from point of the presumption of innocence and see how far the state can get i submit that the state has failed to meet its burden of proof beyond reasonable. mr sheldon has been charged as the state indicated with these 3 charges and the judge has instructed to count one is a 2nd degree murder while committing a felony it's also called the felony murder rule. kind of the textbook example is i

run into a liquor store i pull a gun i'm intending to rob the liquor store my gun goes off i shouldn't kill the teller i didn't intend to go in and murder that person but my the death of that teller occurred while i was committing a felony that's the felony murder. he's been charged with murder in the 3rd degree . for for performing an intentional act that is eminently dangerous you've seen the instructions you heard. and manslaughter in the 2nd degree again the law has all the words it defines the words you need and the instructions should be considered and their entire. whenever i meet with a client i try to explain what the elements are and this is the analogy that are you i say that the criminal case is kind of like baking chocolate chip cookies

you have to have the necessary ingredients you've got to have flour and sugar and butter and chocolate chips whatever else goes into those chocolate chip cookies if you have all of the ingredients you could make chocolate chip cookies but if you're missing any one single ingredient you can't make chocolate chip cookies it's a simple kind of amount but the criminal law works the same way we say the in your we call the ingredients the elements the state has the burden of proving each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt not just some global proposition that they have proved their case beyond reason they have to prove each of these elements beyond reason and if you determine that they have done so you convict but if they are missing any one single element any one single element that is

a not guilty for it. and you saw the spreadsheet that the state put out. elements are a little different in each of these cases. and some of these elements will take less of your consideration you will have to look at the evidence and you will have to for example determine its cut foods in the city of minneapolis is minneapolis and the county of hannifin is hennepin county in the state of minnesota did this happen on may 25th 2012. it's going to take less than your consideration but nevertheless you have to do that if you go through that process. 2 of the elements that i want to focus on during the course of my discussion here today 2 of these elements are common throughout or 2 of these issues are common and apply to all 3. and so i want to focus my remarks today

announced 2 issues the 1st were mr show actions and authorized use of force by he saw for us. because in the instructions it specifically tells you know a crime is committed if it was authorized use of force period end of discussion. the 2nd is an element that is and does appear an ounce that is the cause of death what caused mr ford's death. and we're going to talk about that 2nd. so let's start with the concept of reasonable force as the instructions read in their entirety no crime is committed if the police officer's actions were justified by the police officers use of reasonable force in the line of duty in

affecting a lawful arrest or preventing an escape from custody. the kind and degree of force a police officer may lawfully use and executing his duties is limited by what a reasonable police officer in the same situation would believe to be necessary any use of force beyond that is not reasonable to determine if the actions of the police officer were reasonable you must look at those facts which a reasonable officer in dust same situation would have known at the precise moment the officer acted with force you must decide whether the officer's actions were objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer and without regard to the officers own

subjective state of mind intention or motivations the defendant is not guilty of a crime if you use force of authorized by law and to prove guilt the state must further prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's use of force was not authorized by law so you remember from my opening statement somehow i talked about reason in common sense. the reasonable police officers there. and want to just briefly add one thing here is the standard is not what should the officer have done in the circumstances it's not what could the officer have done differently in the site circumstance the standard is what were the facts that were known to this officer at the precise moment he used force

and considering all of the totality of circumstances and facts known to the officer. what a reasonable police officer what would a reasonable police officer have done. you have heard from numerous experts police use of force experts training department from the minneapolis police department you've heard from police officers street police officers sergeant edward sergeant kluger right so you've heard from these people and they have given you their opinions at various stages as to the reasonableness of the use of force but one of the things that the state one of the things that all of these police officers effectively breed to is that when

you look at the question of what would a reasonable police officer do knowing the facts of the case there are things that a police officer is entitle to take into consideration above and beyond the facts their training the training that they receive there their experience as a police officer the department's policies on the use of force and all of these things kind of lead into the question of most critically what are the facts that were known to the police officer the reasonable police officer at the precise moment the force reduced so you can start at a very high level right where the reasonable police officers knowledge of the area be is this a high crime location is a low crime area those are things those are facts that a police officer would know. what are the specifics of the location of

harassed am i going into a dense densely populated urban environment or am i in a kind of a secluded backyard or an officer is calculating these pieces of information and assessing the risk assessing the threats officers are entitled to kind of take into consideration things that you and i don't think about their tactical advantages their tactical disadvantages they can take into consideration the scene security keeping the scene secure and security of the scene . those are 2 different concepts so kind of again focusing back into what facts were known at the precise moment force is used you can then take into consideration kind of dismayed range level of of information

a reasonable officer wants to keep his fellow officer say. a reasonable police officer takes into consideration the safety of civilians reasonable place the police officer reasonable police officer takes into account the safety of the person that they are arrest they take into account what resources do i have based upon how close am i to a hospital what's the expected time if i call e.m.'s because a pleat reasonable police officer at times they have to put the person in their squad car sometimes and take them because they're farther away calling for help bringing help in would take longer than it would simply to take the person directly . and then you look at the direct knowledge that a reasonable police officer would have at the precise moment force was used that

includes information that they gather from dispatch. their direct observations of the scene the subjects and the current surroundings they have to take into consideration whether they suspect the suspect was under the influence of a controlled substance they can take into consideration because again this is a dynamic and ever changing just like life things change it's a dynamic situation fluid they take into account their experience with the subject at the beginning the middle the end they try to a reasonable police officer tries to predict or is at least cognizant and concerned about future behavior based upon past. but the unpredictability of humans factors into the reasonable police officers analysis because.