the reasonable police frazier. the reasonable police officer will hear the frustration growing. a reasonable police officer will hear the increase in the volume of the voices. a reasonable police officer will hear the name calling. chunk, whatever names are being called, they will here the cursing. they will hear this and it would take that into their consideration. a reasonable police officer will rely on his recent training. excuse me. a reasonable police officer will hear, i will come back to the training. a reasonable police officer will hear what the crowd is saying. he will compare his actions to what they are saying and he will determine, "i know and be recorded,

they are saying that i am doing something that is awful looking, am i doing this?" he something that is awful looking, am i doing this?"— something that is awful looking, am i doing this?" he is human, bro. put them in the — i doing this?" he is human, bro. put them in the car. _ i doing this?" he is human, bro. put them in the car. that _ i doing this?" he is human, bro. put them in the car. that is _ i doing this?" he is human, bro. put them in the car. that is some - i doing this?" he is human, bro. put| them in the car. that is some bum... you gotta _ them in the car. that is some bum... you gotta know that. you got your knee _ you gotta know that. you got your knee and — you gotta know that. you got your knee and his neck, bro. he you gotta know that. you got your knee and his neck, bro.— knee and his neck, bro. he is talkina. knee and his neck, bro. he is talking- in — knee and his neck, bro. he is talking- in a _ knee and his neck, bro. he is talking. in a jujitsu _ knee and his neck, bro. he is talking. in ajujitsu move, - knee and his neck, bro. he is - talking. in ajujitsu move, broke? talking. in a 'u'itsu move, broke? you can talking. in aju'itsu move, broke? you can check— talking. in ajujitsu move, broke? you can check these _ talking. in ajujitsu move, broke? you can check these breathe - talking. in ajujitsu move, broke? you can check these breathe in, l talking. in ajujitsu move, broke? i you can check these breathe in, you don't _ you can check these breathe in, you don't think_ you can check these breathe in, you don't think that they know what that is, i train _ don't think that they know what that is, itrninet— don't think that they know what that is, i train at the academy, that is some _ is, i train at the academy, that is som - , is, i train at the academy, that is som ~. , ~.,. is, i train at the academy, that is som— that. - is, i train at the academy, that is som— that. bro i is, i train at the academy, that is i som_ that, bro you some expletive mac. that, bro you can aet some expletive mac. that, bro you can get him _ some expletive mac. that, bro you can get him off _ some expletive mac. that, bro you can get him off the _ some expletive mac. that, bro you can get him off the ground, - some expletive mac. that, bro you can get him off the ground, you're| can get him off the ground, you're being— can get him off the ground, you're being a— can get him off the ground, you're being a bum right now, you can get him off— being a bum right now, you can get him off the — being a bum right now, you can get him off the ground, you are being a bum right— him off the ground, you are being a bum right now. he enjoyed that. he enjoined _ bum right now. he enjoyed that. he enjoined that expletive.

he enjoined that x of mac bro, you couid've _ he enjoined that x of mac bro, you could've put him in the car by now, bro _ could've put him in the car by now, bro he _ could've put him in the car by now, bro he is — could've put him in the car by now, bro he is not _ could've put him in the car by now, bro. he is not resisting an or nothing _ bro. he is not resisting an or nothinu. ., .., bro. he is not resisting an or nothinu. ., , bro. he is not resisting an or nothing-— bro. he is not resisting an or nothinu. ., , , . ., nothing. you can see officer chauvin bod la nothing. you can see officer chauvin body lay which _ nothing. you can see officer chauvin body lay which tells _ nothing. you can see officer chauvin body lay which tells us _ nothing. you can see officer chauvin body lay which tells us a _ nothing. you can see officer chauvin body lay which tells us a lot. - nothing. you can see officer chauvin body lay which tells us a lot. that i body lay which tells us a lot. that is what we just heard. looking down, looking up, looking around, looking down, looking over, looking around. he is comparing, a reasonable police officer is doing what a reasonable police officer would do. he is comparing his actions, his own actions in response to what the crowd is saying. a reasonable police officer again will rely in his training. 2020, march of 2020, tactics of a crowd. now, i acknowledge that this isn't

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 surroundings. a reasonable police officer will consider his department's policies on crisis. and what is defined as a crisis. crisis...

a reasonable police officer is recognising that the crowd is in crisis. that all of these things, members, the bystanders, 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? this is from the crisis intervention training. this is what was 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 discussed in terms of how to deal with a crisis. —— discussed by ker yang. as this crowd grew more and more upset or deeper into crisis, a very critical thing happens. at a very precise moment. and i cannot in my opinion understate the importance of this moment. the critical moment in this case. if you recall from doctor

tobin's testimony, nobody disagree, that mr floyd took his last breath at 8:25am 16, 8:25:16. what is happening at the very precise moment that mr floyd takes his last breath? you are taking one piece of evidence and you are comparing it against the rest. this moment, 8:25:16, as mr floyd is taking his last breath. get off of him now! he got maced! he cannot— off of him now! he got maced! he cannot breathe! _ cannot breathe! shouting. - cannot breathe! shouting. so. cannot breathe! shouting. �* .,

cannot breathe! shouting. ~ ., m shouting. a look at him! he's not resonsive shouting. a look at him! he's not responsive right _ shouting. a look at him! he's not responsive right now! _ shouting. a look at him! he's not responsive right now! three - shouting. a look at him! he's not responsive right now! three things| responsive right now! three things ha en. responsive right now! three things happen- mr— responsive right now! three things happen- mr floyd _ responsive right now! three things happen. mr floyd takes _ responsive right now! three things happen. mr floyd takes his - responsive right now! three things happen. mr floyd takes his last. happen. mr floyd takes his last breath, you see officer chauvin's reaction to the crowd is pull his niece and shake it, he is 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. startling him. all of these facts and circumstances simultaneously occur at a critical moment. and that changed officer chauvin's perception of what was happening. after this point, the crowd grows louder and louder, write to? and at this point now, mr floyd

has taken his last breath and the question is the rendering of medical aid. when do we stop cpr according to the minneapolis police department's policy... when it is not safe. you heard lieutenant mercil talk about this and you also heard nicole mckenzie talk about this. consider nicole mckenzie is testimony. as far as the reasonable police officer which would include nicole mckenzie, she discussed at length the difficulty of performing cpr in which she would describe or she did describe as a hostile environment. you miss signs. egg and can be confused for effective

breathing. as she testified, "people in the area can affect the decision to treat a subject at the scene." she described how it is incredible difficult to perform ems efforts in a loud crowd, difficult to focus when you don't feel safe, makes it more difficult to assess a patient. next it more likely that you can miss signs that a patient is experiencing something. so the distraction she said can actually do harm to the patient. when we are talking about this critical decision—making model as lieutenant mercil said, decision—making model as lieutenant mercilsaid, he decision—making model as lieutenant mercil said, he testified sometimes you have to take into consideration whether it is worth the risk to remove the handcuffs and to render medical aid. remove the handcuffs and to render medicalaid. because remove the handcuffs and to render medical aid. because it is unpredictable, right? all of this information is coming at a reasonable officer. the reasonable

police officer standard can also be extended to officer chang, right? what is his perception of the crowd? you heard him testify but you can also look at what his body, what was he doing during this time? �*i�*eiiii. also look at what his body, what was he doing during this time?— he doing during this time? yell, i was talking _ he doing during this time? yell, i was talking to — he doing during this time? yell, i was talking to police... _ was talking to police... inaudible. what was that? ok, let's stay put, we will_ what was that? ok, let's stay put, we will figure it out, right? you have officer _

we will figure it out, right? you have officer chang _ we will figure it out, right? mu. have officer chang turning around three to 60 degrees, pacing. his attention focused on what is happening with the crowd. —— 360 degrees. 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 shawon to hill and maurice hall. —— shawon to hill and maurice hall. —— shawon to hill and maurice hall. —— shawon to hill. shawon to hill and maurice hall. -- shawon to hill.— shawon to hill. dam he still won't aet shawon to hill. dam he still won't net in the shawon to hill. dam he still won't get in the car. _ shawon to hill. dam he still won't get in the car, just _ shawon to hill. dam he still won't get in the car, just sit _ shawon to hill. dam he still won't get in the car, just sit down, - shawon to hill. dam he still won'tl get in the car, just sit down, dude! they— get in the car, just sit down, dude! they got— get in the car, just sit down, dude! they got a — get in the car, just sit down, dude! they got a push them in this car. look, _ they got a push them in this car. look, he — they got a push them in this car. look, he fighting to get out. what is he _ look, he fighting to get out. what is he doing?! now he going to jail. all he _ is he doing?! now he going to jail. all he had — is he doing?! now he going to jail. all he had to do was... he had to make _ all he had to do was... he had to make it _ all he had to do was... he had to make it worse... book, they still fighting! — make it worse... book, they still fighting! 0h, make it worse... book, they still fighting! oh, man, what is he doing?

-- iook. _ fighting! oh, man, what is he doing? -- iook. they— fighting! oh, man, what is he doing? —— look, they still fighting. not a -- look, they still fighting. not a olice -- look, they still fighting. not a police officer— -- look, they still fighting. not a police officer and _ -- look, they still fighting. not a police officer and their _ -- look, they still fighting. not a police officer and their reactionsl police officer and their reactions to what is happening but also consider the paramedics, the paramedics. they did the load and 90, paramedics. they did the load and go, right? as derek smith testify, he got out of the ambulance, he checked all four corners to gauge what was happening and determined in his words that it was an unwelcoming environment. and he told his partner they needed to move to a different location, a more safe and secure location. remember nicole mackenzie's testimony too as unreasonable as it sounds, paramedic get attacked, too. —— paramedics get attacked. we have all of these different opinions in terms of the use of force. we have all of the

opinions of seth stoughton, jodi sachar, barry brodd, redondo, lieutenant mercil, and they all reach very different conclusions about when the force became unreasonable. —— jodi about when the force became unreasonable. ——jodi stiger. all you have to know... -- all you half to know _ all you have to know... -- all you half to know about _ all you have to know... -- all you half to know about barry - all you have to know... -- all you half to know about barry brodd i all you have to know... -- all you half to know about barry brodd is| half to know about barry brodd is managing any person. his opinion is you can use nondeadly force to physically manage a person. —— all you have to know. it is all within the model of the mpd decision—making model. ifound the most the model of the mpd decision—making model. i found the most interesting person to be relevant to the use of force lieutenantjohnny mercil

considering that he is derek chauvin's actual use of force trainer. so the best glimpse that we are going to get into the training of a minneapolis police officer comes from the trainer who conducts the training. he has conducted hundreds of trainings over the years. he corrected the state at certain times in terms of how strike charts don't apply to restraint techniques. he said the knee on the neckis techniques. he said the knee on the neck is not an unauthorised move and he said that it can be utilised in certain circumstances. he described using a knee on the neck and back and stated that it could be there for an extended period of time defendant —— depending on the level of assistance. he said once a suspect is handcuffed, it doesn't necessarily mean it is time to move your back because when people are handcuffed, they can thrash around and continue to be dangerous in themselves and others. we talked about the ground defence programme because it is both safe or the officer and the suspect. he talked about ground defence as a form of

using your way to control a subject and therefore replacing the need to punch or strike them. he said there is no strict techniques, you need to be fluid and adapt to the circumstances. that he personally trained officers to put a knee over the shoulder up to the base of the neck, and she described this manoeuvre is routinely trained in the minneapolis police department. he testified that there are circumstances that an officer would need to use his wage to continue to control the subject. —— use his weight. he recognised the concept of lawful but awful, sometimes the use of force is just not that attractive. he has expressed himself arresting people who have claimed to have a medical emergency. he explained how one people can't resist is through their words, he described how someone resisting can become passive and they become persistent again and vice versa. he

discussed how officers are trained not just a focus discussed how officers are trained notjust a focus on the subject but also the bystanders. he trains officers that if you are 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 at a time, that is a legitimate consideration in the continuation of the use of force. he talked about substance abuse and how that, officers are trained. i understand that "superhuman strength" is not a real phenomenon. there are no superman or spider—man, right? but officers are specifically trained that someone under the influence of certain types of controlled substances exhibit this behaviour, they become stronger than they normally would. we have all heard the anecdotal stories of the pregnant mum lifting the car off of

a someone, right? it is not literally describing a superhero, it is simply describing that someone is more exhibiting greater strength. in the minneapolis police department trains for that. he trains her neck restraints. the minneapolis police department has a specific written policy on neck restraint was permitted even though this was not a neck restraint. or a chokehold. he talked about how you need to cut off the blood supply 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, less than ten seconds. he described the human factors of force, that is how does the use of force affect the officer himself, his cognition, his abilities, his mental and physical state? he agreed that not using the

brodd is a form of de—escalation. he described that sometimes you have to use your body weight to control the subject until the scene is code for. —— not using the mrt will up he said minneapolis police officers are trained on sir sir miller circumstances that an officer can hold a person in the prone position until the scene is safe. —— train a minneapolis police officers, and he is and that numerous times. you have to take into consideration the presence of bystanders and where officers are located and the environment that they are in. lieutenant mercil agreed that there are circumstances where you, i talked about this a little earlier ago, where you have to make a decision is it worth the risk to take the handcuffs off to perform medical aid? take the handcuffs off to perform medicalaid? he 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 the safety of people

including the crowd. while awaiting ems, he 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. it doesn't mean that you cannot use force. it 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 nondeadly use of force that we have looked at a couple of times. the use of force is an incredibly difficult analysis. you can't limit it to nine minutes and 29 seconds. it started 17 minutes before that nine minutes

and 29 seconds. 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's standard. 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 unauthorised use of force. as unattractive as it may be. —— this was an authorised use. and this was a reasonable doubt. stiger talked about being on the panel. you

have a panel to assess whether uses of force are reasonable. sometimes it is 4-1, of force are reasonable. sometimes it is 4—1, sometimes it is 3—2, sometimes it is 5—0 because the reasonableness of the use of force is not an easy thing to consider. i know again and i'm sorry i am long—winded. there are a couple of other things i need to talk about very briefly, i promise i will be as brief as i can, before i get to the cause of death. first is that concept of intent. as the state showed you with respect to counts one and two, you have to address mr chauvin's intent. pay careful attention again to the instructions. words have meaning. intentionally or intentional...

you will see a very similar instruction, you see this very similar instruction twice. intense. did officer chauvin intentionally apply unlawful force? that's what you're being asked to decide. did he purposefully, purposefully, apply unlawful force to another person? in count two, you have to decide did he purposely perform an act, did he intentionally perform an act that was eminently dangerous? what

considerations do you have at your disposal, what pieces of evidence do you have, i'm going to 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 out of people. first officers know that they are being videotaped. they know they're being videotaped. they know they're being videotaped by themselves. they know they're being videotaped by bystanders. they know they are being surveilled by the minneapolis police department milestone camera. they know these things. do you do something purposefully that you know his unlawful use of force when you

have for 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 are being watched? remember officer layne offered to have when they were putting mr floyd into the squad car, he said, "i will sit with you, i will turn the window down, i will turn the air conditioning," i am claustrophobic, please! conditioning," i am claustrophobic, lease! ., ., , ., ., please! you are still going into the car... are please! you are still going into the car- -- are you _ please! you are still going into the car... are you doing _ please! you are still going into the car... are you doing nothing? - car... are you doing nothing? nothing _ car... are you doing nothing? nothing no _ car... are you doing nothing? nothing, no sir, _ car... are you doing nothing? nothing, no sir, i— car... are you doing nothing? nothing, no sir, i was - car... are you doing nothing? nothing, no sir, i was doing l nothing, no sir, i was doing nothing. _ nothing, no sir, i was doing nothing. im— nothing, no sir, i was doing nothing, i'm cost— nothing, no sir, i was doing nothing, i'm cost of- nothing, no sir, i was doing nothing, i'm cost of a - nothing, no sir, i was doing nothing, i'm cost of a for. nothing, no sir, i was doing. nothing, i'm cost of a for real, nothing, no sir, i was doing - nothing, i'm cost of a for real, mr officen _ nothing, i'm cost of a for real, mr officer. . , ., nothing, i'm cost of a for real, mr officer. ., , ., , ., ,

officer. can you please... thank officer. can you please... - thank you. - officer. can you please... - thank you, god, . officer. can you please...- - thank you, god, matheson will. thank you, god, matheson please — will. thank you, god, matheson please man. _ will. thank you, god, matheson please man, click— will. thank you, god, matheson please man, click on _ will. thank you, god, matheson please man, click on i _ will. thank you, god, matheson please man, click on i wasn't i please man, click on i wasn't hurting — please man, click on i wasn't hurting none _ please man, click on i wasn't hurting none of— please man, click on i wasn't hurting none of y'all... i hurting none of y'all... inaudible. _ hurting none of y'all. .. inaudible.— when people do soft on i will roll the windows— when people do soft on i will roll the windows down, _ when people do soft on i will roll the windows down, 0k? - when people do soft on i will roll the windows down, ok? i'm i when people do soft on i will roll. the windows down, ok? i'm going when people do soft on i will roll- the windows down, ok? i'm going in mr officen _ the windows down, ok? i'm going in mrofficen i'rn— the windows down, ok? i'm going in mrofficer. i'm going— the windows down, ok? i'm going in mr officer. i'm going in. _ the windows down, ok? i'm going in mr officer. i'm going in. why- the windows down, ok? i'm going in mr officer. i'm going in. why don't. mr officer. i'm going in. why don't y'all believe — mr officer. i'm going in. why don't y'all believe in. _ mr officer. i'm going in. why don't y'all believe in, mr— mr officer. i'm going in. why don't y'all believe in, mr officer? - mr officer. i'm going in. why don't y'all believe in, mr officer? i- mr officer. i'm going in. why don't y'all believe in, mr officer? i am i y'all believe in, mr officer? lam not the kind _ y'all believe in, mr officer? lam not the kind of— y'all believe in, mr officer? lam not the kind of guy! _ y'all believe in, mr officer? lam not the kind of guy! i'm - y'all believe in, mr officer? lam not the kind of guy! i'm not i y'all believe in, mr officer? lam not the kind of guy! i'm not the i not the kind of guy! i'm not the kind _ not the kind of guy! i'm not the kind of— not the kind of guy! i'm not the kind of guy _ not the kind of guy! i'm not the kind of guy-— not the kind of guy! i'm not the kind of au . ., ., ., ~ ., , ., kind of guy. you need to take a seat riaht now. kind of guy. you need to take a seat right now- just _ kind of guy. you need to take a seat right now. just let _ kind of guy. you need to take a seat right now. just let go, _ kind of guy. you need to take a seat right now. just let go, i _ kind of guy. you need to take a seat right now. just let go, i want... i right now. just let go, i want... hey. _ right now. just let go, i want... hey. listen _ right now. just let go, i want... hey. listen i_ right now. just let go, i want... hey, listen. iwill right now. just let go, i want... hey, listen. i will roll the windows sound... i hey, listen. iwill roll the windows sound... ., ., ., ~ ., , sound... i am not that kind of guy. look at it, — sound... i am not that kind of guy. look at it, look _ sound... i am not that kind of guy. look at it, look at _ sound... i am not that kind of guy. look at it, look at it! _ sound... i am not that kind of guy. look at it, look at it! |_ sound... i am not that kind of guy. look at it, look at it! i will - sound. .. i am not that kind of guy. look at it, look at it! i will roll- look at it, look at it! i will roll the window — look at it, look at it! i will roll the window down _ look at it, look at it! i will roll the window down three i look at it, look at it! i will roll|

the window down three times, look at it, look at it! i will roll. the window down three times, is look at it, look at it! i will roll- the window down three times, is that evidence of intent to apply unlawful force? officer chauvin confirms that mr floyd is under arrest.— mr floyd is under arrest. listen you are auoin mr floyd is under arrest. listen you are going to — mr floyd is under arrest. listen you are going to jail — mr floyd is under arrest. listen you are going to jail. he _ mr floyd is under arrest. listen you are going to jail. he is _ mr floyd is under arrest. listen you are going to jail. he is under- are going to jail. he is under arrest — are going to jail. he is under arrest right now for forgery. what is auoin arrest right now for forgery. what is going on- _ arrest right now for forgery. what is going on- for— arrest right now for forgery. what is going on. for what? _ arrest right now for forgery. what is going on. for what? officer i is going on. for what? officer chauvin made _ is going on. for what? officer chauvin made a _ is going on. for what? officer chauvin made a decision i is going on. for what? officer chauvin made a decision not i is going on. for what? officerl chauvin made a decision not to is going on. for what? officer i chauvin made a decision not to use higher levels of force when he would have been authorised to do that including punches, kicks, elbows. all of these tools were available to officer chauvin. that is not an intention to purposefully use unlawful force. intention to purposefully use unlawfulforce. the intention to purposefully use unlawful force. the call for ems within one minute of putting him on the ground. they stepped it up within another minute and a half. he believes that his, officer chauvin

believes that his, officer chauvin believes that his, officer chauvin believes that mr floyd's ability to speak means he can breathe and he says it repeatedly. excuse me... they tell him to relax. abs]!!! says it repeatedly. excuse me... they tell him to relax.— they tell him to relax. all right. oh, my god- — they tell him to relax. all right. oh, my god. i _ they tell him to relax. all right. oh, my god. i can't— they tell him to relax. all right. oh, my god. i can't breathe. i they tell him to relax. all right. i oh, my god. i can't breathe. officer chauvin is never _ oh, my god. i can't breathe. officer chauvin is never swearing _ oh, my god. i can't breathe. officer chauvin is never swearing at i oh, my god. i can't breathe. officer chauvin is never swearing at him, i chauvin is never swearing at him, never calling him names. all of this stuff that we have already talked about, i don't need to go through this again, all of this stuff we have talked about throughout the entirety of this circumstance does not reflect an intent to purposefully, intentionally commit an unlawful use of force. all of the evidence shows that mr chauvin thought that he was following his training, he was in fact, his

training, he was in fact, his training, he was finally minneapolis police department policies, he was trained this way. it all demonstrates a lack of intent. there is absolutely no evidence that officer chauvin intentionally, purposefully applied unlawful force. officer chauvin is also refocusing the other officers, telling them they need to do things to pay attention to mr floyd.

get him in the car? we are going to kee him get him in the car? we are going to keep him down- _ get him in the car? we are going to keep him down. should _ get him in the car? we are going to keep him down. should i _ get him in the car? we are going to keep him down. should i put i get him in the car? we are going to keep him down. should i put his i keep him down. should i put his stuff in the _ keep him down. should i put his stuff in the car? _ keep him down. should i put his stuff in the car? know— keep him down. should i put his stuff in the car? know we i keep him down. should i put his stuff in the car? know we need. keep him down. should i put his. stuff in the car? know we need to get him into the ambience, refocus. officer chauvin had no intent to purposefully use, or he did not purposefully use, or he did not purposefully use, or he did not purposefully use unlawful force. these are officers doing theirjob in a highly stressful situation. according to their training, according to the policies of the minneapolis police department and it is... it's tragic. it's tragic. they go to the hospital. they perform cpr. they called their supervisors.

was this an eminently dangerous act? was this an eminently dangerous act? was putting mr floyd an eminently dangerous at? we heard a lot about the prone position. considerjust the prone position. considerjust the basic prone position. people sleep in the prone position, people suntan in the prone position, people get massages in the prone position, the prone position in and of itself is not an inherently dangerous act. it is not an inherently dangerous act. the prone position during restraint is not an inherently dangerous act. it is routinely trained and used by the minneapolis police department. the studies show, right, the canadian studies that were referenced by doctor fowler.

1206 to nine cases, use of force, one death of a person not in the prone position. these are people looking at people in the prone position. a828, consecutive force events. no significant clinical effects on the subjects physiology. we can look at all the other studies trying to determine this question is putting a subject either 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 no. the prone position when applied is not an eminently dangerous act because there is no evidence to support the notion that it was highly likely, that's the standard, highly likely to cause death. there is reasonable

doubt about that. so let's talk about the cause of death. and again i'm sorry to be long—winded. but i have to address the cause of death. because the state elected to read perhaps one of the most important sentences from the instruction, and why you must read the instruction carefully. the defendant can be yes, 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 were the

natural consequences of the defendant's acts he's liable to so think about it in this example. a police officer arrest somebody, he puts that person on a hot august afternoon in the back—seat of a squad car, rolls of the window, turns on the heat and leaves the person in there. the 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 a police officer arrest someone, they are compliant, they go into the back—seat of the squad car, they are sitting in the back—seat of the squad car and they have a heart attack, they have a pulmonary embolism, they have a brain aneurysm, something happens to that person that was not the natural consequence of being arrested. it was just a physiological something that happened to the individual, the

officer is not liable because it's not the natural course of events. and it's not the result, the natural result of the defendant's act. so again, read the entire instruction. the significance of this instruction, again, is that it goes through all of the three charges. you have to be convinced that the defendant's actions caused the death of mr floyd. and throughout the course of this trial the state has tried and called numerous witnesses to try to convince you that asphyxiation is the singular cause of death. the singular cause of death. and why is that? it's because actions that happened before mr

floyd was arrested that had nothing to do with officer derek chauvin's 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 a reasonable doubt that the stress of being arrested and the adrenaline produced as a result of mr floyd's physical resistance played no role, this is what they have to try to convince you, that there's no role of that physical exertion, played no role in this death. they are trying to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that mr floyd's heart disease played no role in this case. the state must try to convince you

beyond a reasonable doubt that mr floyd's history of hypertension played absolutely no role in the cause of mr floyd's death. the state must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that mr floyd was not experiencing excited delirium that contributed to the cause of his death. the state has a convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that mr floyd's condition was not contribute into the cause of death. they must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that mr floyd's toxicology played no role in his death. the state would have to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt and a combination of these pre—existing issues did not contribute to mr floyd's death. that is why the state has brought in expert after expert

after expert to testify at the singular cause of death, the singular cause of death, the singular cause of death, the singular cause of death is asphyxiation. because if mr floyd was asphyxiated 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 it, if any of these other factors were substantial contribute in factors of mr floyd's death, because there were not the natural result of there were not the natural result of the restraint. if a person has drugs in their system and that drug causes an overdose in the context of the police restraint that's not the natural consequence of the restraint, is the natural consequence of the deceased's actions. so the state has called six

experts, really five, but i will include doctor baker. the state first called doctor tobin, a pulmonologist, doctor tobin said that you need to apply common sense to the evaluation of the medical testimony. he testified that mr floyd died exclusively from positional asphyxia. coronary artery disease, hypertension, controlled substances, they played absolutely no role in the death according to doctor tobin. the state called another doctor, a toxicologist to explain to you that mr floyd's topological levels were somehow more consistent with a dwi case and a whole bunch of other cases that may or may not have involved an overdose. rememberthe or may not have involved an overdose. remember the ratio where, no, it was cases, they may have died

of something else like a gunshot wound but they had fencing in their system. so he gave it the strange statistics but essentially attempting to try to convince you that these levels are insignificant, people drive their cars around, and therefore the drugs played no role in the death of mr floyd. third, the state called 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. they called doctor thomas, a pathologist to testify how she interpreted what doctor baker meant, how she concluded that doctor baker simply said that the cardiopulmonary arrest

is the basic way everybody dies. and she interpreted the reason why doctor baker put those factor on the autopsy or death certificates were merely for statistical purposes. we just come in the cdc requires us to put that stuff on there. and it was and is fixed deal death, controlled substances play no role, hypertension played no role, coronary artery disease played no role. they did call doctor baker and talk about doctor baker in a minute. finally the state called doctor rich, a cardiologist that concluded despite a 90% narrowing of the right coronary artery is 75% narrowing the left anterior descending artery, despite an enlarged heart and history of hypertension, that is floyd had a strong heart and that none of those pre—existing and

coexisting conditions in any way contributed to the death of mr floyd. i contributed to the death of mr flo d. , , ., , ., contributed to the death of mr flo d. , , ., floyd. i submit to you that the testimonies _ floyd. i submit to you that the testimonies of _ floyd. i submit to you that the testimonies of doctor - floyd. i submit to you that the testimonies of doctor tobin, l floyd. i submit to you that the i testimonies of doctor tobin, rich, thomas and others, it flies the absolute face of reason and common sense. it's astounding. especially when you consider the actual findings of doctor baker. because doctor baker is the only person who actually performed the autopsy in this case, the only person who performs the actual autopsy. he told you he specifically avoided watching the video because he did not want tobias or influence his —— two bias.

he specifically testified there was no evidence of asphyxia. there was no evidence of asphyxia. there was no evidence of haemorrhaging, 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 like this. there was no finding that pressure was applied to the point to cause these injuries. there was no injuries to the structures of his neck and that when he finally did review the video did not appear that the placement of the knee affected the placement of the knee affected the structures of the neck. because mr floyd could lift up his head, turn his head and move it around. he saw no fractures to the structures of the neck including the bone. there was no soft tissue injuries, there was no haemorrhaging or injury to the pharynx, no evidence of

life—threatening injury to the neck or spinal column of mr floyd. there was pulmonary oedema which is the spelling of the lungs which could be caused by the resuscitative efforts or fentanyl. caused by the resuscitative efforts orfentanyl. there's no evidence caused by the resuscitative efforts or fentanyl. there's no evidence of hypoxic changes to the brain, no evidence of any brain injury consistent with an asphyxia death. he found at para gangly oma and said it was incidentalfinding. he he found at para gangly oma and said it was incidental finding. he said mr floyd's heart was enlarged. doctor baker, doctor thomas, mr floyd's heart was enlarged. doctor baker, doctorthomas, doctor rich, doctor fowler all agreed. doctor baker, doctorthomas, doctor rich, doctor fowlerallagreed. he found narrowing of the right coronary artery, 90% narrowing. he found 75% narrowing of the left anterior descending artery. he's the person who did the, he did the

toxicology samples. attentional level at 11 nanograms per millilitre. methamphetamine at .19 per millilitre. all of these findings that are ultimately relied upon by all of these other experts were done by doctor baker. he determined that the manner of death was a homicide. homicide, homicide, homicide. but read the definition again of the medical definition of homicide. it the fact that he found this a homicide is a medical term. doctor fowler talked about the undetermined

manner, could not be determined as a classification used when the information pointing to one minute of death is no more compelling than one or more other competing manners of death in or through consideration of death in or through consideration of all available information. doctor baker found the immediate cause of death and other contributing factors. cardiopulmonary arrests obligating law enforcement neck and straight and neck compression, other contribute factors, arterial and hypertensive heart disease, factional intoxication and recent methamphetamine use. the term complicated in this is important because doctor baker was able to give you what he said his actual intent was. doctor thomas speculated about what she thought doctor baker

meant, doctor baker was able to tell you what he meant. he defined obligating as an intervention that occurred, intervention occurred and there was an untoward outcome on the heels of the intervention. he gave you a specific example, he described a person having hip surgery and a blood clot comes loose. and that blood clot comes loose. and that blood clot comes loose. and that blood clot causes a death. the hip surgery did not cause the death, the death was caused by the blood clot that complicated the surgery. so as i understand his testimony, with doctor baker was saying was that there was an unexpected result, the death of mr floyd occurred during an event where you would not generally expect such complication. restraint. he specifically testified, doctor baker specifically testified that if you put it on the death certificate

it played a role in the death. if something is insignificant to death you don't put it on the death certificate. so doctor baker's conclusions that mr floyd's hypertensive disease played a role in the death of mr floyd. doctor baker concluded that mr floyd's fentanyl intoxication played a role, doctor floyd, sorry, doctor baker concluded that mr floyd's recent methamphetamine use played a role. doctor baker described that this death of mr floyd was a multi—factorial process, a

multifactorial process, no single factor played one or the other plate any more of a result or a role resulting in mr floyd's death. he said his heart simply could not handle it. within the context of the restraint. apparently the state as they just argued restraint. apparently the state as theyjust argued once you to believe what you see. and they did not like doctor baker's conclusions. and you can see the process doctor baker talked about when he had several meetings. it happened in may, june, july, by august. talked to a pulmonologist, talk to emergency room doctor, not within my area of expertise, talk to a cardiologist.

he, his findings did not support the notion that what you see is what you should believe. and so the state did that, they went and hired doctor tobin, a pulmonologist. now despite all of the information that doctor baker has concluded or found all of the information that doctor baker has concluded orfound during the actual autopsy, doctor tobin concluded emphatically that mr floyd's death was the result of a position asphyxia, pressure of the asphalt, pressure of the weight of the officers, the positions, all of this resulted in hypoxia, low oxygen to the brain, mr floyd was asphyxiated through positional asphyxia. rememberat the

asphyxiated through positional asphyxia. remember at the beginning of my remarks i asked you to perform an honest assessment of all of the evidence in the case, and i'm going to submit to you that with no other witness should this be more carefully analysed. i want to illustrate brief things that doctor tobin testified about, and i want to illustrate how i think that these demonstrate a bias, because you still have to consider an expert witness in the context of bias. i'm going to call it the finger and knuckle testimony and the toe lifting testimony. you may remember this slide. that this slide shows george floyd pushing his fingers against the street to lift his shoulder off the street. that he was pushing his knuckles against the tyre. he described what he

interpreted this was based in mr floyd trying to push himself up into, onto his left side to free the right lung to help them breathe. look at the time stamp of the body worn camera here. they were taken at 819 30 five p:m.. 15 seconds after mr floyd was placed on the ground. doctor tobin also explained mr floyd went on to breathe for an additional five minutes and 51 seconds until he took his last breath at 8:25 p:m.. he neglects the fact that at this point, this is the point wejust he neglects the fact that at this point, this is the point we just saw when mr floyd is taken out of the car and he is actually in the side recovery position for about the first two minutes of this nine

minutes and 29 seconds. stop moving! mama! mount — minutes and 29 seconds. stop moving! mama! mount mama! _ minutes and 29 seconds. stop moving! mama! mount mama! mama! - minutes and 29 seconds. stop moving! mama! mount mama! mama! mama! l minutes and 29 seconds. stop moving! l mama! mount mama! mama! mama! all i’ilht. mama! mount mama! mama! mama! all right all_ mama! mount mama! mama! mama! all right all my— mama! mount mama! mama! mama! all right all my god — mama! mount mama! mama! mama! all right all my god i_ mama! mount mama! mama! mama! all right. all my god. i can't _ mama! mount mama! mama! mama! all right. all my god. i can't breathe. i right. all my god. i can't breathe. i can't _ right. all my god. i can't breathe. i can't breathe. _ right. all my god. i can't breathe. i can't breathe. i— right. all my god. i can't breathe. i can't breathe. i can't— right. all my god. i can't breathe. i can't breathe. i can't breathe, i i can't breathe. i can't breathe, man _ i can't breathe. i can't breathe, man you! _ i can't breathe. i can't breathe, man you! '— i can't breathe. i can't breathe, man. you! , because _ i can't breathe. i can't breathe, man. you! , because i- i can't breathe. i can't breathe, man. you! , because i love i i can't breathe. i can't breathe, i man. you! , because i love them. i can't _ man. you! , because i love them. i can't breathe — man. you! , because i love them. i can't breathe enough, _ man. you! , because i love them. i can't breathe enough, man. - man. you! , because i love them. i. can't breathe enough, man. crying! crying. mama, i love you. i can't do

nothinu. crying. mama, i love you. i can't do nothing- my — crying. mama, i love you. i can't do nothing- my face _ crying. mama, i love you. i can't do nothing. my face is _ crying. mama, i love you. i can't do nothing. my face is gone. _ crying. mama, i love you. i can't do nothing. my face is gone. crying. i crying. mama, i love you. i can't do nothing. my face is gone. crying. ll nothing. my face is gone. crying. i can't breathe. _ nothing. my face is gone. crying. i can't breathe, man. _ nothing. my face is gone. crying. i can't breathe, man. please, i nothing. my face is gone. crying. i can't breathe, man. please, please| can't breathe, man. please, please let me _ can't breathe, man. please, please let me stand — can't breathe, man. please, please let me stand-— let me stand. please, i can't breathe- _ let me stand. please, i can't breathe. get _ let me stand. please, i can't breathe. get up _ let me stand. please, i can't breathe. get up on - let me stand. please, i can't breathe. get up on sidewalk| let me stand. please, i can't i breathe. get up on sidewalk please. crying~ _ breathe. get up on sidewalk please. crying. get breathe. get up on sidewalk please. crying. , , , , breathe. get up on sidewalk please. crying._ leave - breathe. get up on sidewalk please. | crying._ leave him, crying. get his legs up. leave him, leave him- — crying. get his legs up. leave him, leave him. look— crying. get his legs up. leave him, leave him. look at _ crying. get his legs up. leave him, leave him. look at my _ crying. get his legs up. leave him, leave him. look at my face, - crying. get his legs up. leave him, leave him. look at my face, man. i crying. get his legs up. leave him, i leave him. look at my face, man. how can ou leave him. look at my face, man. how can you take — leave him. look at my face, man. how can you take to — leave him. look at my face, man. how can you take to commit _ leave him. look at my face, man. how can you take to commit this _ can you take to commit this illustrates how you can take a single nanosecond of time in this arrest, you can have this testimony that he's pushing his body up to try to breathe but when you look at the evidence compared to the rest of the evidence compared to the rest of the evidence what do you really see? you see a person who is on his side

being held in the side recovery position who the hand is touching the ground and the tyre at times, you cannot take a single isolated frame and reach any conclusions, because much like the use of force, cause of death has to be considered within the totality of the circumstances. and then you may remember this testimony, this is officer derek chauvin's foot off the ground. he described how at this precise moment officer derek chauvin was applying 91.5 pounds of pressure to the neck of mr floyd. so let's look at this time in the context of the other evidence. put look at this time in the context of the other evidence.— look at this time in the context of the other evidence. put them in the car! how long _

the other evidence. put them in the car! how long do — the other evidence. put them in the car! how long do you _ the other evidence. put them in the car! how long do you all— the other evidence. put them in the car! how long do you all have i the other evidence. put them in the car! how long do you all have to i car! how long do you all have to hold him down? _ car! how long do you all have to hold him down? did _ car! how long do you all have to hold him down? did anybody i car! how long do you all have to l hold him down? did anybody even car! how long do you all have to i hold him down? did anybody even see the toe come — hold him down? did anybody even see the toe come op _ hold him down? did anybody even see the toe come up off— hold him down? did anybody even see the toe come up off the _ hold him down? did anybody even see the toe come up off the ground? i i the toe come up off the ground? i mean, was it half a second, a quarter of a second? but when you take a single incident, a frame, a single frame and you add the drama and you make all of the assumptions. officer derek chauvin's body weight, mr floyd's ee lv, the only person who calculated ee lv based upon health, studies, theory, all of this information. you can put this into a single frame but you have to analyse the evidence in the broader context.

you can also see during the clip that officer derek chauvin readjusted forward and touches this car. you can make a lot of informed decisions about how is he shifted? if i'm shifting my weight this way the majority of my weight is shifting on my left foot. if i'm 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. the toe tucked under helps an officer maintain his weight or helps a person maintain their weight, but the toe flopped over to the side it's a little harder to balance. you cannot take a single frame and draw conclusions. you have to look at the totality. and remember, he said he

spent 150 hours analysing this tape. his entire testimony is filled with theory, speculation and assumption. do not let yourselves be misled by a single still frame image. but the evidence in its proper context. we have to talk about the toxicology. again, not suggesting that this wasn't overdose death. it's a multifactorial process. as doctor baker said. we have to look at what role does the toxicology play in this case? and you need, because again we had the doctor who testified that he found that the

levels of fenta nyl and levels of fe nta nyl a nd methamphetamine levels of fenta nyl and methamphetamine were more consistent with this dui. but what do we know of the actual toxicology? we are 11 nanograms per millilitre professional and then the methamphetamine. as of the two principalfindings. and additionally what we know is that the by—product of methamphetamine which is amphetamine, was not reported at the levels. does not mean it was not technically there, but it was not reported so it's below a threshold reporting values. which signifies that the methamphetamine use was recent. hence in doctor baker's death certificate he included the recent methamphetamine use. because there was no amphetamine. the

history of mr floyd's use of controlled substances is significant. it's not a character problem, millions of americans sufferfrom the opioid problem, millions of americans suffer from the opioid crisis. problem, millions of americans sufferfrom the opioid crisis. i mean, it is a true crisis at this country is facing. but it is significant to understand the history notjust significant to understand the history not just as significant to understand the history notjust as much of the long—term history but his long—term history provides us with insight on how his body physically reacts to methamphetamine or opioid use as i should say. opioid use within the context of a law enforcement encounter. we know from the testimony of courtney ross that mr floyd struggled. we know he had been using controlled substances habitually for some time. we know that on may six of 2019 during an

encounter with the police mr floyd ingested some controlled substances, so they were percocets. he was startled by the police like he was in this case, the officer drew his gun in that case as well. and that resulted in a blood pressure of 216/160. that's notjust high, that is a skyrocketing hi. we know from mr austin in march of 2020 they purchased some pills that were supposed to be percocets, in opioid. but they were clearly knockouts, she described that. they were clearly knockoffs. she described how those pills made her feel, they kept her up all night. right? the introduction of the methamphetamine. we know from miss ross that in march of 2020 mr floyd was seen for a drug overdose. she

described how