this is the point at 820 and 49 seconds mr frazier starts recording reasonable police officers are aware when they're using force and sometimes what they are doing to not look good to the general public. the reasonable police officer will hear the frustration growing. in a reasonable police officer will hear the increase in the volume of the voices a reasonable police officer will hear the name call right cho whatever whatever names are being called the hear the curse and that they'll hear this and they'll take that into their consideration be reasonable police officer will rely on his recent training.

reasonable police officer will hear what it will come back to the jury reasonable police officer will hear what the crowd his wrists is saying he will compare his actions to what they are saying and he will determine i know i'm being recorded right i know i'm being recorded they're saying that i'm doing something that's awful lucky am i going am i doing this. are you me run down now and when i was there would have been a hard. time imagining a bra and a bomb ask you haha i know to be going to row. row row row without you do you start to look like. you try to trap only really right here bro but you don't need to. be no i understand that's the way it had me brought it to the road right now who she is rather than who broke the booking stopping

breathing right you're probably. not talking about you would you go you know hopping around being a bum right now you didn't want to drown bro you don't want to grow you know now be enjoying being. a bookie bottom bro enjoy him as you right now bro you could a book you put him in a car by now. in a red thread not. you and you can see officer shows are body language tells us a lot that's what we just are looking down looking out looking around looking down looking over looking around he's comparing a reasonable police officer who's doing what a reasonable police officer would do he's comparing his actions his own actions in response to what the crowd is saying reasonable police officer again will rely on his training 2020 march or 2020 tactics of the crowd never

underestimate the crowds potential. crowds are combined. crowds are very dynamic creatures and can change rapidly crowd may contain elements of several types of groups now acknowledged that this is in dealing with massive crowds protests and things of that nature these are the tactics but you never underestimate a crowd's potential because a reasonable police officer has to be aware and alert to his surround. you reasonable police officer will consider his department's policies on crisis and what is defined as a crisis crisis and event or situation where an individual safety and health are threatened by behavioral challenges to include mental illness developmental disability substance abuse or over whelming stress stressors a crisis can involve an individual's perception or experience of an event or

situation as an intolerable difficulty that exceeds the individual's current resources and coping mechanisms and may include unusual stress in his or her life that renders him or her unable to function as he or she normally would a crisis may not necessarily may but may not necessarily result in an upward trajectory or intensity culminating culminating in thoughts or acts that are possibly dangerous to himself or herself or others. a reasonable police officer is recognizing that the crowd is in crisis that all of these things the members the bystanders the citizens whatever you want to call them they are in crisis so a reasonable police officer considers his department's training. what are these potential signs of aggression that i may be confronted with somebody standing tall

somebody red in their face raised voice heavy breathing tense muscles pacing right this is from the crisis intervention training this is what curt yang testified to these are signs that police officers are trained to look for in a crisis as potential signs of aggression how do you respond to those you appear confident in your actions you stay calm you maintain space you speak slowly and softly and you avoid staring and eye contact again these are things that curt yang discussed in terms of how to deal with a crisis. as this crowd. more and more upset or deeper into crisis a very critical thing happens and

a very precise. and i cannot in my opinion understate the importance of this moment the critical moment in this case. if you recall from dr tobin's testimony nobody disagreed that mr floyd took his last breath at 825-168-2560 what is happening at the very precise moment mr floyd takes is asked are. you taking one piece of evidence and you're comparing it against the rest of. this moment 258-2516 as mr ford is taking his last breath.

you. know. no. 3 things happen mr floyd takes his last breath you see showman's reaction to the crowd is to pull his mates and shake it he's threatening the use of force as is permitted by the minneapolis police department policy and genevieve hansen walks in at that time from behind him start doing. all of these facts and circumstances simultaneous the occur at a critical moment and that

changed officers showman's perception of what was happening. after this point the crowd grows louder and louder. and at this point now mr floyd has taken his last breath and the question is the rendering of medical aid. where do we stop c.p.r. in the minneapolis police department. when it's not safe you heard tenet mercer talk about those and you also heard. nicole mckenzie talk of us consider nicole mackenzie's test. as far as the reasonable police officer which would include nicole mckenzie she discussed at length the difficulty of performing c.p.r.

in what she would describe as her she did describe as a hostile environment you miss science you agonal breathing can be confused for affective breathing and she testified people in the area can affect the decision to treat a subject at the scene she described how it is incredibly difficult to perform and m.s. efforts in a loud crowd difficult to focus when you don't feel safe makes it more difficult to assess a patient makes it more likely that you can miss signs that a patient is experiencing something so the distraction she said can actually do harm to a patient and we're talking about this predictable decision making model right as lieutenant marshall said he testified sometimes you have to take into

consideration whether it is worth the risk to remove the handcuffs and render medical aid because it's unpredictable right all of this information is coming at a reasonable officer. the reasonable police officer standard can also be extended to officer change right what is his perception of the crap you heard him testimony testify but you can also look at what his body what was he doing during his during this time it.

was a. mistake. you thought officer changing he said turning around $363.00 is right his attention is focused on what's happening with the crowd but he also has another job . reasonable police officers and how they interact with the crowd is a consideration you can also take into consideration the reactions of shalonda helen laurie's whole. heart.

not a police officer and their reactions to what's happened but also consider the paramedics right the paramedics they did the loading go right as derrick smith testified he got out of the ambulance he checked all 4 corners to gauge what was happening and determined in his words that it wasn't welcoming environment and he told his partner they needed to move to a different location more safe and secure location remember

nicole mackenzie's testimony to as unreasonable as it sounds paramedics get attacked too. we have all of these different opinions in terms of the use of force right you know all of the opinions of. jodi steiger barry brod zimmerman era dando. david polluter the tenet mercy and they all reach very different conclusions about when the force became an reason of. all you have to know about barry brod is what he was talking about is this physically managing and each person is in was you can use non-deadly force to physically manage a person. it's all within the model of the m.p.

the decision making. i found the most interesting person to be relevant to the use of force lieutenant johnny mercer considering that he is there showman's actual use of force training so the best glimpse that we're going to get into the training of a minneapolis police officer comes from the trainer who conducts the trains. he's conducted hundreds of trainings over the years he corrected the state at certain times in terms of house strength charts don't apply to restraint techniques he said the knee on the neck is not an an authorized move and it can be utilized in certain circumstances he described using a knee on the neck and back and stated that it can be there for an extended period of time depending on the level of resistance you he said that once a suspect is handcuffed that does not necessarily mean that it is time to move your

leg because when people are handcuffed they can thrash around and continue to be dangerous to themselves and others you talked about the ground defense program because it's safer for both the suspect in the officer he talked about around offenses a form of using your weight to control a subject with and and therefore replacing the need to punch or strike he said there's no techniques you need to be fluid and adapt to the circumstance that he personally trains officers to put the meat over the shoulder up to the big base of the deck the neck and he described this maneuver as routinely trade in the minneapolis police department he testified that there are circumstances that an officer would need to use his weight to continue to control a subject you recognize the concept of awful but lawful right sometimes the use of force is just not that attractive he's experienced himself arresting people who

have claimed to have a medical emergency he explained how people one way people can resist is through their words he described how someone resisting can become passive and then become resistant again and vice versa he discussed how officers are trained not just to focus on the subject but also the bystanders. he trains officers that if you're fighting with a suspect and that person then becomes compliant it is a legitimate consideration for the continued use of force to control a subject that if a subject overpowers more than one officer time that is an legitimate consideration in the continuation of the use of force he talked about substance abuse and how that officers are trained and it i understand that superhuman strength is not a real phenomena i know there are no superman or spider right but officers are

specifically trained that someone under the influence of certain types of. controlled substances exhibit this behavior they become stronger than they normally were we've all heard the addict godel stories of the pregnant mom lifting the car off of some right it's not literally describing a superhero it's simply describing that someone is more exhibiting a greater strength and the minneapolis police department specifically trains he trains on neck restraints minneapolis police department has a specific written policy on the use of neck restraints and it was permitted even though this wasn't a not restrict or chalco he talked about how you need to cut off the blood supply for this for a neck restraint to both sides of the neck he talked about how someone whose heart rate is beating faster they go unconscious quicker that's from 10 seconds he

described the human factors a force that is hollow does the use of force affect the officer himself his cognition his abilities his mental and physical state he agreed that not using them m.r. t. is a form of desk deescalation. he described that sometimes you have to use your body weight to control a subject until the scene is code for he said that minneapolis will train officers that under certain circumstances an officer can hold a person in the prone position until the scene is safe and he's done it himself times. you have to take into consideration the presence of bystanders where officers are located and the environment that they're in lieutenant merciless agreed that there are circumstances where you this i talked about this a little earlier where you have to make

a decision is it work for risk to take the handcuffs off to perform medical aid. he said there are circumstances where you wouldn't put someone in a recovery position depending upon say the safety of people including the crowd. while awaiting a mass you described how crowds can make situations chaotic he said simply because a person is not actively resisting that does not mean that you cannot use force. right doesn't mean you cannot use force simply because someone isn't stabbing you or punching you or shooting at you it doesn't mean that you can't use force and that is specifically in the minneapolis police department policy on the non deadly use of force that we've looked at a couple of times the use of force is an incredibly difficult

analysis you can't limit it to 9 minutes and 20. started 17 minutes before that 9 minutes and 20 minutes it's all of this information has to be taken you have to look at it from the totality of the circumstances. you have to look at it from the reasonable police officer. you have to take into account that officers are human beings capable of making mistakes in highly stressful situations. in this case the totality of the circumstances that were known to a reasonable police officer in the precise moment the force was used demonstrates that this was an authorized use of force as unattractive

as it may be and this is reasonable doubt. steiger talked about being on the panel. they have 5 officers on a panel to assess whether uses of force or reason sometimes it's for a long 3 times as 3 to 2 sometimes it's 5 to 0 because the reasonableness of the use of force is not an easy easy thing to consider. i know again i'm and i'm sorry i'm long winded. there are a couple of other things i need to talk about very briefly i promise i'll be as brief as i care before i get to the cause of death 1st is that concept of intent as the state showed you with respects respect to counts one and 2 you have to address

mr show over and intent pay careful attention again to the instructions. words have meaning. intentionally or intentional means that the defendant either has the purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act if successful will cause the result in addition the defendant must have knowledge of those facts that are necessary to make his conduct criminal and that are set forth after the word intentional intention it's the same for saying you'll see a very similar instruction see this very similar structure twice. in tact. did officer show than intentionally apply on moffo force that's what you're being asked to decide did he purposefully purposefully. apply online force

to another person in count 2 you have to decide did he purposely perform an act did he intentionally perform an act that was eminently dangerous. lookin siddur ations do you have to at your disposal what pieces of evidence do you have i'm a try to go through these quickly. what evidence is there what evidence is inconsistent with intent. some facts and circumstances that are important for you to decide in terms of his intent is within the context of aiding and abetting other people. first officers know that they are being videotaped they know they're being videotaped by themselves they know they're being videotaped by bystanders they know they're being surveilled by the

minneapolis police department milestone cam right they know these things do you do something purposefully that you know is an unlawful use of force when you have for our body worn cameras immediately in the area where you have multiple civilians videotaping you where you know your actions are being reviewed through a city owned camera where there are surveillance cameras do people do things intentionally and purposefully when they know they're being watched. remember officer lane offered to have when they were putting mr sloyd into the squad car he said i'll sit with you put the window down turn on the air conditioner the girls about the boat with the boat off or go to the far. right for sure honey i want you number to run for all your time over there are my father nothing about this i'm

not quite up to what we had to them without the least getting cooler but me was the . moment for you about was it i don't place a spectacle before us the miners they were where i well yes they were here and thank you. for the greater good. hearted woman who owed money where have. you got it said who are going to write about you know how much i have been a good bet it. has been a better rider who has heard this from. over ok ok ok i have to see i have got to have a couple was something from somebody with the mind of god and they don't pay because if i'm going there without nagato you can see my loneliness out there just being up at that hour. i'm not the kind of god the judge 7 would say. you need to take a seat right now and i never told me i don't like the friday morning when alone i

said that i'm not the parent god all the men of god like acknowledged you know bought you to get it not let me get it because it would. roll the window down 3 times and turn on the air conditioning is that and then something tend to apply the awful force officer showing confirms that mr ford is under wraps to see me how do you do that because you have to deal with people not trying to help or one dramatically kind of what's going on for years but. why do you. officers show then made a decision not to use higher levels of force when he would have been authorized to do that including punches kicks out loads all of these tools were available to officer sure. that is not an intent to purposefully use unlawful force

he called for any mass within one minute of putting him on the ground they step it up within another minute and a half he believes that his officer showed and believes that mr floyd's ability to speak means he can breathe and he say repeatedly remember. they tell him to relax. no ordinary. officer show and is never swearing at him he's not calling him names all of this stuff that we've already talked and you know i don't need to go through this again all of the stuff that we've talked about throughout the entirety of the

circumstance does not reflect an intent to purposefully intentionally commit an on lawful use of force all of the evidence shows that mr show than thought he was following his training he wasn't fact following his training he was following minneapolis police department policies he was trained this way all demonstrates a lack of interest. there is absolutely no evidence. officer shows an intentional purposefully applied a new unlawful force. above them. officer show then is also refocusing the other officers. telling them they need to do things to pay attention to mr

ford. i learned who we. are are. are. there are. there are. or. should i put his stuff in the car no we need to get him in the ambulance let's refocus. obvious or show than had no intent to purposefully use he did not purposefully use unlawful force it's it's these are officers doing their job in a highly stressful situation according to their training according to the policies of the minneapolis police department and it is it's it's tragic it's tragic.

if you go to the hospital they perform c.p.r. they call other supervisors. was this an eminently dangerous act was putting on mr floyd eminently dangerous act we've had a lot about the prone position consider just the basic proposition people sleep in the prone position people sometimes in the print position if you don't have the sodgers in the prone position the problem position in and of itself is not inherently dangerous act it is not an inherently dangerous. proposition during restraint is not an inherently dangerous that. it is

routinely trained and used by the minneapolis police department. the studies show right canadian studies that were referenced by dr fall are 1269 cases use of force one death of a person not in the prone position these are people that are looking at people in the prone position 4828 consecutive force events no significant clinical facts on the subjects physiology. we can look at all of the other studies trying to determine this question is is putting a subject in the proposition even with officers on top even with weight on top of the person is that inherently dangerous and the research says no the practical experience says yes that says no the proposition when applied through the use of

force is not an eminently dangerous act because there is no evidence to support the notion that it is highly likely that's the standard highly likely to cause death there's reasonable doubt about that. so let's talk about the cause of death. and i again i'm sorry to to be longwinded but i have to address the cons. because the state neglected to read perhaps one of the most important sentences. from the instruction and why you must read the instruction. yes the defendant is criminally liable for all of the consequences of his actions that occur in the ordinary and natural course of events including those consequences brought about by one or more intervening causes

if such intervening causes were the natural result of the defendant's act. so if the intervening causes are the natural consequences of the defendant's acts he's liable so think about it in this example. a police officer arrests some he puts that person on a hot august afternoon in the backseat of a squad car rolls up the window turns on the heat and leaves the person in. person dies of a heat stroke officer put him in there and is responsible for the natural consequences of his actions but consider the situation where police officer arrest someone for compliant they go into the back seat of the squad car sitting in the

back seat of the squad car and they have a heart attack they have a common area they have a brain aneurysm something happens to that person that was not the natural consequence of being arrest it was just a physiological something that happened to that individual the officer is not liable because it's not the natural course of events and it's not the result of a natural result of the defendant's act. so again repeat an entire instruction. the significance of this instruction again is that it goes through all of the 3 charges you have to be convinced that the defendant's actions caused the death of mr ford. and throughout the course of this trial the state has tried and called

numerous witnesses to try to convince you that it's fixie action is the singular cause of death the singular cause and why is that it's because actions that happened before mr floyd was arrest that have nothing to do with officer chauvinism activities are not the natural consequences of the defendant's actions. you have to focus on the consequence of the defendant's acts and so the state has tried to convince you beyond reason. that the stress of being arrested and the adrenaline presume produced as a result of mr floyd's physical resistance played no role this is what they have to try to convince normal of that physical exertion played no role

in this stuff they're trying to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that mr floyd's heart disease played no role in this case. the state was trying to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that mr ford's history of hypertension played absolutely no role in the cons mr ford's to. the state must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt the mr ford was not experiencing side to deliver you contributed to the confidence of. the state has to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that mr ford's parroting leona was not. contributing to the cost of that. the state must convince you beyond reasonable doubt that mr floyd's toxicology played no role in his death. the state would have to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that

a combination of these pre existing issues did not contribute to mr ford's death that is why the state has brought in expert after expert after expert to testify that the singular cause of death the singular cause of death here is a strict seizure because if mr floyd was a spics he did as a result of the police restraint he is liable for the natural consequences of that restraint of his actions but if any of these other factors come into. if any of these other factors were substantial contributing factors of mr ford's death because they were not the natural result of the restraint the person has drugs in their system and that the drug causes an overdose

in the context of the police restraint it's not the natural consequence of the restraint it's the natural consequence of the deceased's actions. so the state has called 6 experts really 5 but i'll include dr baker. if the state 1st called dr toben upon monologist dr tobin said that you need to apply common sense to the evaluation of the medical test. he testified that mr floyd died exclusively from positional asphyxia. coronary artery disease hypertension controlled substances they played out slowly no role in the death according to dr toby state called dr eyes and the toxicologist to explain to you that mr floyd's tox

a logical levels were somehow more consistent with a d.w.i. case and a whole bunch of other cases that may or may not have involved an overdose. member the ratio where he's well known these are cases they may have died of something else may have died of a gunshot wound but they have knowledge system so he gave you these strange statistics but essentially attempting to try to convince you that he that these levels are insignificant people drive their cars around right and that therefore the drugs plead no role in the death of mr. 3rd the state called dr smock an emergency room physician. to explain to you that mr floyd was not experiencing any symptoms of excited delirium and that coronary artery disease hypertension controlled substances none of that comes into play. the call

dr thomas path ologists to testify how she interpreted what dr baker meant how she concluded that dr baker simply said that the cardiopulmonary arrest is the basic way everybody. and she interpreted the reason why dr baker put those factors on his autopsy or on the death certificate were merely for statistical purposes you puts that we just the c.d.c. requires us to put that stuff. and it was it is fixable deaf controlled substances played no role hypertension play no role ornary artery disease played no role they did call dr banker to talk about dr baker and. finally the state called dr ridge a cardiologist who concluded that despite

a 90 percent narrowing of the right coronary artery and a 75 percent narrowing in the left interior descending artery despite an enlarged heart and a history of hypertension that floyd mr floyd had a strong heart and that none of those codes preexisting and coexisting conditions in any way contributed to the death of mr ford. i submit to you that the testimonies of dr toben eyes and schmidt schmock thomas and rich it flies in the absolute face of reason and comments. it's it's astounding especially when you consider the actual findings of dr baker. because dr baker is the only person who actually performed the autopsy in this case is the only person who performed the

actual autopsy. he told you that he specifically avoided watching the video because he didn't want to bias or influence is. autopsy. he specifically testified that there was no evidence of this fix. there were no evidence of particular hemorrhaging there was no bruising to the neck or back above the skin under the skin or into the subcutaneous muscles of the neck and back and he would expect to see those things in a case. there was no finding that pressure was applied to the 2 of mr back to cause these injuries no injuries to the structures of his neck and that when he finally did review to feel it did appear that the placement of the knee affected the structures of the night because mr ford can lift up and set turn

aside driven around he saw no fractures to the structures of the neck including the hired book there were no soft tissue injuries to the sides of mr ford's and there was no hemorrhaging or injury to the hypo ferentz. no evidence of life threatening injury to the neck or spinal column mr for it was palm an area demon which is the swelling of the lungs which could could be caused by the recess the teeth of the efforts or phantom. there's no evidence of hypoxic changes to the brain there's no evidence of any brain injury consistent with and fix this fix you death he found impaired and we all know and he said it was an incidental finally he said his heart was in march mr ford's heart was in. dr baker dr thomas dr rich dr follower all agreed he found narrowing

of the right coronary artery artery 90 percent narrowing he found 75 percent narrowing of the left anterior descending artery he is the person who did the tot he sent out the toxicology samples fratton a level at 11 nana grams per milliliter methamphetamine at point $19.00 per milliliter all of these findings that are all timidly relied upon by all of these other experts were done by dr baker. he determined that the manner of death was a homicide right homicide homicide homicide but read the definition again of the medical definition of homs it is to be emphasized that the classification of homicide for the purposes of the death certificate is a neutral term and neither indicates nor implies criminal intent which remains

a determination of within the province of the legal process it's. the fact that he found this a homicide is a medical term dr fall or talked about the undetermined manner. could not be determined is a classification used when the information pointing to one manner of death is no more compelling than one or more other competing manners of death in or through consideration all of the all of the information. dr baker found the immediate cause of death and the other contributing factors cardiopulmonary arrests complicating law enforcement subdual neck restraint and neck compression other contributing factors arthur or tiriel sclerotic and hypertensive heart disease fence are nontoxic haitian and recent methamphetamine this. term complicated indus is

important because dr baker is was able to give you what he said his actual intent was right dr thomas speculated about what she thought dr baker meant dr baker was able to tell you what he she defined complicating as an intervention that occurred an intervention occurred and there was an untoward outcome on the heels of that intervention and he gave you a specific example he described a person having a hip surgery and a blood clot comes loose and that blood clot causes a death the hip surgery didn't cause the death the death was caused by the blood clot that complicated the surgery so as i understand. what dr baker was say was that there was an unexpected result the death of mr floyd

occurred during an event where you would not generally expect such a complication subduing restraint he specifically testified dr basic baker specifically testified. that if he put it on the faster to figure it played a role in the death if something is insignificant to death you don't put it on the certificate so dr baker's conclusions that mr floyd's arteriosclerotic and hypertensive disease played a role in the death of mr ford dr baker concluded that mr floyd's phantom intoxication played a. doctor fluids. dr baker concluded that mr floyd's recent nothing feder mean use played iraq. dr baker described

that this death of mr floyd was a. multi factorial process the multi-factorial process is how he defines no single factor one over the other played any more of a result put any more of a role resulting in mr ford's death he said his heart simply couldn't and. within the context of the subdual restrict. apparently the state as they just argue. once you to believe what you see and they did not like dr baker's conclusions you can see the process dr baker talked about when he had several meetings. happen in march and

proceeded having met june july august talked to paul monologist talked to emergency room doctor not within my area of expertise talked to a cardiologist. he. his findings didn't support the notion that what you see is what you should believe. so the state did that they went and hired dr toto paula not just now. despite all of the information that dr baker has concluded were found during the actual autopsy doctor told been concluded emphatically that mr ford's death was the result of position was fixed. pressure of the asphalt pressure

of the weight of the officers positions all of this resulted in hypoxia law oxygen to the brain mr floyd was this fix it through positional asphyxia remember at the beginning of my remarks and i ask you to perform an honest assessment all of the evidence. and i'm innocent miti with no other witness should dispy more carefully and just. want to illustrate to briefings that dr tobin testified. and i want to illustrate how i think that these demonstrate it bites because you still have to consider an expert witness in the context of but. i'm going to call it the finger and knuckle testimony and the total lifting test. you may remember this slide.

that this slide shows george floyd pushing his fingers against the street to lift his shoulder off the street but he was pushing his knuckles against the tire. he described what he interpreted this was basically mr floyd trying to push himself up into onto his lifestyle under his left side to free the right long to help him breathe. look at the time stamp of the photos taken from the body one camera here they were taken at 8193515 seconds after mr ford was placed on the ground it dr toben but he also explained mr ford went on to breathe for an additional 5 minutes and 51 seconds until he took his last breath a $25.00 he neglects the fact that at this point

this is the ploy we just saw when mr ford is taken out of the car and he is actually in the side recovery position for about the 1st 2 minutes of this 9 minutes and 29 seconds. a moving. moment cuomo now my mom up on how to whammo a my grandson. when i'm a bad. parents guy. i don't know no. i don't believe. they really. bother you recently you know all about you who are older i thought.

i thought i really got. the job. a lot more. or. all. already you know oh i do not go to mass on the way off a dog 000-000-0000 go green drive a car. believe it was day you know now remember they were or are you know all i do at least once there are hello i have. my place get up if you like oh i thought you know well you are right i am absolutely wrong not. the words were . getting on him how can you take this illustrates how you can take a single nanosecond of time in this arrest you could have this testimony that he's pushing his body up she tried to breathe.

but when you look at the evidence compared to the rest of the evidence what do you really see. you see a person who's on his side being held in the side recovery position whose hand is touching the ground in the tire times you can not take a single isolated free and reach any conclusions because much like that use of force cause of death has to be considered within the top of the circumstances and then you may remember you remember this test this is officer show vince foot off the ground and he described how at this precise moment officer show that was applying 91.5 pounds of pressure to the neck of mr

ford so let's look at this time in the context of the other avenues. in ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. our nominee value our right to hear about rock gardens i don't. think anybody even see the tocome up off the ground i mean was it half a 2nd quarter of a 2nd. but when you take a single incident for a single funny and you add the drama and you make all of the assumptions it officer show wins body. mr floyd's easy v. he's the only person who calculated the e.l.v. based upon the presumptions of health based upon studies

based upon fieri. all of this information you can you can put this into a single frame. but you have to analyze the evidence in the broader context you can also see during the clip that officer show actually really is sort of adjusted forward and touches this car. you can make a lot of informed decisions about how is it shifted if i'm shifting my weight this way majority my weight is shifting on my left foot. this way it's on my right foot you watch this video and you can see the dynamic shifting and you can see the placement of the toes in the toll tucked under helps an officer maintain his weight or helps any person me. but it told flopped over to the side it's

a little harder to balance you cannot take a single frame and drag conclusions you have to look at the totality. remember he said he saw a 150 hours analyzing this through. his entire testimony is filled with theory speculation assumption do not let yourselves be misled by a single still frame in which put the evidence in the proper context. we have to talk about the toxicology begin not suggesting that this was an overdose death. it's a multifactorial process as dr besser baker said so we have to look at

what role does the toxicology play in this case i need because again we had dr isom smith who testified that he found that the levels of. no fenella methamphetamine more consistent with this dui population but what do we know about the actual toxicology we're allege that a man a grams per milliliter a fountain and point $19.00 man a grams of methamphetamine those are the principal 2 family friends and additionally what we know is that the byproduct of methamphetamine which is amphetamine was not reported at the levels doesn't mean it wasn't technically there but it was not reported so it's below a threshold reported now use which sig which signifies that the and the

met them fed a mean use was recent hence in dr baker's that certificate he included the recent math in fact i mean because there was no. answer to the history of mr floyd's use of controlled substances it's it is significant it's not a character problem millions of merican suffer from opiate the opiate crisis right i mean it is a it is a true crisis that this country is facing but it is significant to understand houston not just as much as the long term history but his long term history provides us with insight on how his body physically reacts to math and fat i mean or or opioid use i should say opioid use within the context of a law enforcement encounter. we know from the testimony of courtney ross that

mr floyd struck. we know he had been using controlled substances a bitch really for some. we know that on may 6th of 200-1000 during an encounter with the police mr floyd ingested some. substances so there were purpose signs. he was startled by the police like he was and this case officer drew his gun in that case too and that resulted in a blood pressure of 216 over one 6th and that's not just high that is skyrocketing. we know from miss ross that in march of 2020 they purchased some pills that were supposed to be purpose it's not pure but they were clearly knockoffs you describe that they're clearly not.