weapon, like a bat, and so then they would reflect on that and determine whether or not this is a risk, it's a bat, maybe the person is at a baseball game or a threat, the bat is being brandished, correct? >> yes. >> then after that under authority to act if they've determined that this, in fact, is a risk and that they're being threatened, they would look at the authority back to the mpd policy and procedure manual. is that right? >> yes. >> under what is the use of force policy, what tools are available to me to respond here? >> yes. >> okay. the next step then after considering the authority to act, goals and actions. what is that? >> the goals -- the officer's making an assessment, so with the authority act, will an arrest resolve the situation? will separating the two parties be enough? is -- is taking a report, will

that be enough of a goal or an action? it may mean a combination of things. it may mean that i'm going to have to or the officers are going to have to make an arrest, but we may need additional resources here because the situation is still -- could have the potential to not be stabilized. so all of that is part of that goals and action. >> and then to review and reassess. assuming that means exactly what it says. >> exactly. yes. information's going to flow, dynamics can change. and so it can be a constant just review and assess -- reassess the situation to make sure that we're trying to get to the best possible outcome in this, peacefully and safely. >> because circumstances can change, the situation can change, correct? >> yes. >> and force that might be appropriate at one moment might not be appropriate at a different moment or more force might be needed at yet another point. is that right? >> yes. >> this particular critical

thinking model, exhibit 276, we see examples of this throughout training materials that are provided by the trainers at the facility. is that right? >> yes. >> why is that? >> it's to really embed that knowledge that, you know, we don't want to fall susceptible to kind of check the box training. this training is important for all of our officers to have a knowledge and understanding of. and that our community members can expect this to be consistent as they have encounters or engagements with our officers. >> all right. if we could take that down, please. and i want to shift a little bit to talk about -- we talked about use of force and the policy. does minneapolis police department train its officers in specific defensive tactics?

>> yes. >> and where does that training occur? >> that training occurs at our special operations center. >> and does the department provide training for officers handling uncooperative individuals? >> yes. >> does the department provide training for handcuffing reluctant suspects? >> yes. >> and when you provide the training, assuming you're taking someone into custody, do you also teach officers their responsibilities, their personal responsibility with respect to the person they've just taken into custody? >> yes, we do. >> and what responsibility does an officer have to a person they've taken into custody or restrained? >> so the american policing profession, which i believe is the best in the world, and i will tell you why and it's really two reasons -- >> rephrase your question -- >> yes, your honor.

sir, you have a responsibility i guess in that's imparted throughout officers in various forms of training as to what -- once someone is in their custody -- >> oh, yes. we have -- we have a duty of care. and so when someone is in our custody, regardless if they're a suspect, we have an obligation to make sure that we provide for their care. >> does that include people to whom the defensive tactics are being applied? >> yes. >> why is that? >> they're still in our custody. and they have rights. and the humanity of this profession, we need to make sure that we're taking care of them. >> so how often are officers required to participate in defensive tactics training? >> it's usually yearly, annual

training. >> do you know that -- when we're talking about the training and policies in effect on may 25, 2020, were neck restraints and choke holds taught and authorized by mpd policy at the time? >> at that time, yes. >> and they were taught pursuant to the defensive tactics training, as well? >> yes. >> at this time, i'd like to publish exhibit 224. exhibit 224 was showing mpd policy 5-311, use of restraints, neck restraints and choke holds. you see a choke hold is considered a deadly force option, is that right? >> yes. >> if you could go to the next page, please.

neck retrains, if you could highlight that portion down to unconscious neck restraint. there are various types of neck restraints that were authorized at the time, is that right? >> yes. >> and neck restraint was defined as compressing one or both sides of the neck with an arm or a leg, is that right? >> yes. >> but without applying direct pressure to the trachea, the airway that needs to be protected. >> yes. >> and there were two types of neck restraints that were authorized, conscious neck restraint and unconscious neck restraint. >> yes. >> and the objective of the unconscious neck restraint, the second one, would be to have the person actually pass out. >> that is correct. >> under certain circumstances in which the officer was in fear of grave bodily harm or death, that would be authorized. is that right? >> yes. >> and conscious neck restraints were more with the neck

restraint with the intent to control but not to render the subject unconscious. is that right? >> yes. >> by applying light to moderate pressure. is that right? >> that is correct, yes. >> then if you could go to roman two on the same policy. highlight that. conscious neck restraint can be used for someone who actively resisting, correct? >> yes. >> and unconscious neck restraint could be used for a person who is using -- exhibiting active aggression or to save a person's life. is that right? >> yes. >> okay. or on a subject who is exhibiting active resistant in lesser attempts would likely to be in effect, is that right? >> yes. >> but not -- neck restraints were not to be used against persons who were merely passively resistant, correct?

>> that is correct. >> now i'd like to draw your attention to may 25, 2020. can you tell the jury when you first learned of the incident involving the defendant, officer s tao, lane, keung, and george floyd. >> on monday evening around 9:00 p.m. back on may 25th, 2020, i received a call, i was at my residence. and i received a call from one of my -- i think it was a deputy chief who had informed me that minneapolis police officers had responded to 38th and chicago.

and while attempting to take someone into custody, that which i learned now to be mr. floyd, they believed that he would not make it or survive. and so he was being transported via ambulance to at that time hennepin county medical center. and while at least the information i had that evening at 9:00 p.m., at that time at least i was told was still alive, i decided to contact the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension. and they are a state agency that conducts our critical incidents. i deemed that this would be a critical incident, and it has been our protocol to alert them and they would conduct that investigation. so i made that call to the bca

to have them start to conduct this critical incident. >> did you then proceed to city hall? >> i should also say that i -- right after that call i notified minneapolis mayor jacob frye to say this is a situation that we have at least right now, and i would brief him as i received more information. i then proceeded to leave my residence, and i went directly to my office in city hall. >> when you arrived at city hall, do you recall seeing any video images or footage of this event? >> the first time that i saw a video of the event was after i was notified that mr. floyd had now been -- was now deceased. and so i'd asked my deputy chief to pull up what i -- knowing the

area really well and knowing that there's usually a camera, a city-owned camera at that location, i asked him to locate that video so that i could review it. >> okay. and that's what we would refer to as the milestone camera or milestone footage? >> that is correct. >> okay. did you watch the footage from the milestone camera that evening? >> i did watch. >> can you describe for the jury what you saw when you watched the footage? >> when i first viewed this milestone video, what i was able to see -- and i should note that it was from a distance, from where the officers were with mr. floyd. and so all i could really see were the back sides of the officers. there was also no audio to this milestone video. and so i viewed that video in

its entirety and quite frankly there was really nothing in terms of the actions of at least, again, this non-audio video that really jumped out at me. after a few minutes, it seemed a paramedics vehicle pulled up to the scene, and it was at that time for the first time that i saw a glimpse of mr. floyd when paramedics placed him -- placed his body on the gurney and transported him away from the scene. that was really my first observation of that incident from that night. >> at some point did you become aware of another video that had been taken by a bystander? >> yes. probably close to midnight a community member had contacted me and said, "chief -- almost

verbatim but said, "chief, have you seen the video of your officer choking and killing that man at 38th and chicago?" and so once i heard that statement, i just knew it wasn't the same milestone camera video that i had saw. and eventually within minutes after that, i saw for the first time what is now known as the bystander video. >> fair to say that this was a much closer video, and it had audio? >> yes. i was able to see the occurrence, see the officers involved, i was able to actually see mr. floyd. i was actually able to hear what

was occurring, and i was also able to get a better understanding of the length of time, the duration of the call, the incident, yes. >> now, prior to testifying today, have you now reviewed the bystander video, facebook video, in its entirety? >> yes, i have. >> you've also reviewed and reviewed milestone footage? >> yes, i have. >> and have you reviewed the body-worn camera footage worn by officers tao, keung, lane, and the defendant? >> yes, i have. >> now first i want to show you what's been received as exhibit 17. do you recognize exhibit 17 to be an image taken from the bystander video that you reviewed? >> yes, i do.

>> now sir, based upon your review of all of the information that you just mentioned, do you believe that the defendant followed departmental policy 5-304 regarding deescalation? >> i absolutely do not agree with that. >> and how so? >> that action is not deescalation. and when we talk about the framework of our sanctity of life and when we talk about the principles and values that we have, that action goes contrary to what we're taught. >> as you reflect on exhibit 17, i must ask you, is this a trained minneapolis police department defensive tactics technique? >> it is not. >> we read the departmental

policy on neck restraints. is this a neck restraint? >> the conscious neck restraint by policy mentions light to moderate pressure. when i look at exhibit 17 and when i look at the facial expression of mr. floyd, that does not appear in any way, shape, or form that that is light to moderate pressure. >> so is it your belief then that this particular form of restraint, if that's -- that's what we'll call it, in fact violates departmental policy? >> i absolutely agree that violates our policy. >> are you aware now that the defendant maintained this position on george floyd for nine minutes and 29 seconds? >> i am aware of that. >> i believe you testified that force has to be reasonable when it's applied at the beginning and through the entire encounter, is that right?

>> that is correct. >> is what you see in exhibit 17 in your opinion within indianapolis police departmental policy 5-300 authorizing the use of reasonable force? >> it is not. >> and why not? >> that is -- it has to be objectively reasonable. we have to take into account the circumstances, information, the threat to the officer, the threat to others. and we -- the severity of that. so that is not part of our policy, that is not what we teach, and that should be condoned. >> when do you believe or do you have a belief as to when this restraint, restraint on the ground that you've viewed should have stopped? >> once mr. floyd, and this is based on my viewing of the

videos -- once more floyd had stopped resisting, and certainly once he was in distress and trying to verbalize that, that should have stopped. there's an initial reasonableness in trying to just get him under control over -- in the first few seconds. but once there was no longer any resistance and clearly when mr. floyd was no longer responsive and even motionless, to continue to apply that level of force to a person proned out, handcuffed behind their back, that -- that in no way, shape, or form is anything that is by policy, is

not part of our training, and it is certainly not part of our ethics or our values. >> based on review of the video and based on your experience and training as an mpd officer, did you see signs during the encounter that mr. floyd was exhibiting being in medical distress? >> yes. yes. >> and you saw at one point i think you just testified that mr. floyd was unresponsive. >> that is correct. >> and that officers, were you aware that officers couldn't find a pulse? >> could you repeat that, sir? >> were you aware that officers at the time of the restraint were unable to find a pulse? >> yes, i was aware of that. >> and so stated. >> i was aware that the officers were not able to find a pulse, yes. >> did you see the defendant or any of the officers attempt to provide first aid to mr. floyd? >> i did not see any of the

defendants try to attempt to provide first aid to mr. floyd. >> the defendant did not try cpr, he did not start chest compressions? >> objection, argumentive and leading. >> sustained as leading. rephrase. >> did you see them -- did you see them provide any medical attention? >> i did not. >> and based on these observations, do you have an opinion as to whether the defendant violated mpd departmental policy 7-350 by failing to render aid to mr. floyd? >> i agree that the defendant violated our policy in terms of rendering aid. >> thank you. i have no further questions at this time, your honor. >> mr. nelson?

>> good afternoon, chief. >> good afternoon, counselor. >> thank you for being here this afternoon and this morning. >> thank you. >> a few followup questions for

you regarding this incident. your determinations today are in reference to employment policies and -- mr. chauvin's actions veiliting the department's -- violating the department's policies, correct? >> that is correct. >> now as the police chief, i assume that you're not out on the street day to day arresting people. >> that is correct. >> can you just give me a general sense -- when's the last time that you've actually aol -- i don't mean to be dismissive -- but actually arrested a suspect? >> it's been many years, sir. >> your role as a minneapolis police chief is sort of grander in its scope, right? i mean, it's -- >> it's large and in context and the operations of the department, yes. >> and part of that job is to be sort of aware of issues in policing, kind of policy changes, use of force changes. all of these things under -- fall under the umbrella of your role as the chief, agreed? >> yes.

>> and you're sort of the general in a sense, right? formulating the plan for your police department? >> and delegating some of those to subject matter experts, yes. >> correct. when you talk about training of a police officer, you would also include the training that the minneapolis police department goes through, but you may go to other trainings out of state, listen to speakers talking about issues that confront policing, right? >> yes. >> as well as maybe a homicide detective will get permission to travel to an interviewing a suspect type of a training in some other state or location, right? >> yes. >> and so there's -- there is a variability within the training depending upon your role as -- in the police department, right? >> yes. >> so you've got sort of your rank and file basic patrol officers and they go through the

defensive trainings, tactics, medical assistance or basic medical training, crisis intervention, things that we've been talking about here today, right? >> yes. >> and then investigative-type officers, they may go to some -- they have to go through that training, but they may go through additional training in terms of how to interview suspects or how to properly collect evidence, et cetera, unique to their role? >> yes. >> you as the police chief or those in a management or administrative part of the police department, you go to the kind of the big-picture training sometimes? >> that's correct. >> all right. so i want to review with you a few of the policies that we've already talked about today. if we could take this down for the moment, your honor.

first of all, i'd like to show you what has been introduced as exhibit 216, 2-1-6, which is the use of force policy for the city of minneapolis police department. >> yes. >> we've discussed this. and i know that kind of what we did a little earlier is we jumped around from part to part. but i'd like to walk through some of these issues in little bit more linear fashion if we could.

so you've described under policy 5-301.01 that the fourth amendment's reasonableness standard applies to the use of force in minneapolis, of the minneapolis police department. agreed? >> yes. >> and that goes on to say that mpd employees shall only use the amount of force that is objectively reasonable, and it continues "in light of the facts and circumstances known to that employee at the time the force is used." correct? >> yes. >> so the reasonableness standard or the objectively reasonable standard applies to the facts and circumstances that are known by the officer at the time the force is being used. correct? >> yes. >> now 5-302 gives some definitions in terms of the use of force and differentiates

against active aggression and active resistance. can you describe the difference between active resistance -- excuse me, active aggression and active resistance? >> the behavior initiated by the subject that may or may not be in response to police efforts to bring a person into custody or control. the act of aggression which presenting behaviors that constitute an assault or in the circumstances reasonably indicate that an assault or an injury to any person is likely to occur at any moment, active aggression. >> let me stop you there. that's active aggression. that's where a suspect is essentially fighting with the police officer or doing something that is aggressive behaviorally speaking, agreed? >> yes. >> that is aggressive in its nature. >> yes. >> now can you read active resistance? >> active resistance is a response to police efforts to bring a person into custody or control for detainment or arrest. subject engages in active resistance when engaging in physical actions or verbal

behavior reflecting in attention to make it more difficult for officers to achieve actual physical control. >> so essentially what we're talking about here is behavior that may or may not be physical in its nature that simply makes it harder for an officer to take a person into custody. agreed? >> yes. >> and sometimes that is maybe not -- trying to punch the officer, but pulling away or hiding his arms or doing something that just makes it more difficult physically, right? >> yes. >> and sometimes it's you're not going to take me alive, you dirty cop, you know. like they're saying something to -- to prevent the officer from arresting. >> yes. >> right. so they're using their words, they're using their behaviors. is it common based upon your experience for people to enjoy being taken into custody? >> no -- >> do people like to be arrested? >> typically not. >> right.

and in your experience, is it common practice for people whom are being arrested to say things in an effort to try to get the officer to not arrest them? >> that's that certainly occurs, yes. >> my mom is home sick, i need to get home to my kids, there may be words that they use to try to convince an officer to not arrest them. right? >> yes. >> now you would also agree that there is a difference between being arrested and being detained. agreed? >> there can be. yes. >> right. so an officer in certain circumstances is permitted to expand the scope of the original intervention. would you agree with that? >> objection. >> you can restate. >> let me try -- when an officer approaches a situation and let's assume it's a relatively minor

offense, is it possible that that minor offense can grow in its scope of investigation? >> yes. >> and it's actually quite common for that to happen, correct? >> yes. >> an officer makes a traffic stop for speeding or something like that, smells drugs in the car, searches the car, finds a large amount of drugs, finds guns, et cetera. right? >> yes. >> so what starts out as a relatively minor incident, a traffic ticket, can turn into a felony arrest. correct? >> it could. >> and that, again, happens quite regularly. >> yes. >> so when an officer -- let me back up a second. you would agree that being a police officer is a pretty dangerous profession. >> there are inherent dangers with it. >> i never had to get in a fight with anybody in my job, right. but in your job it's probably

more probable that that will happen. would you agree with that? >> yes. >> now talking about the use of force, when an officer approaches a motor vehicle, is that considered to be one of the most dangerous initia -- initiations of contact between an officer and a citizen? >> i don't see the exact statistics on it. it's certainly an encounter that officers are certainly more heightened. i know that domestic response calls can also have a sense of heightened awareness for officers. but it's certainly something, a traffic stop certainly raises an awareness for officers and their safety. >> that's because that's that suspect's sort of space, right? the officer doesn't know what's in the car or in the apartment during a domestic situation. you're walking into someone

else's territory so to speak. right? >> yes. >> and so there could be guns, there could be knives, there could be any number of instruments that could bring harm to a police officer. right? >> there's that potential. >> now obviously there's tens of thousands of traffic stops, and there's not -- not every traffic stop turns violent. i'm not suggesting that. but that does happen regularly, agreed? >> it -- >> that traffic stops turn violent? >> yes, they can. so when we're talking about the use of force under 5-3 on 01.01, the force used shall be consistency with currents mpd training, agreed? >> yes. >> now there's a difference between a policy change and like a best practice change. would you agree with that? >> can you clarify? >> sure. so there are certain times where

the policy -- to the use of force -- may specifically change to prohibit a particular style or use of force. right? >> yes. >> so thinking about in the old days officers used to wear like weighted gloves to make their punches more effective, right? >> yes. >> the policy changed and prohibited that, correct? >> yes. >> and then there's a difference between, say, the evolution of defensive tactics. would you agree with that? i mean, the -- the defensive tack trainsing you received in 1989 is different than the deficitive tactics training that's taught now, right? >> yes. >> i believe it was maybe 15 years ago that the minneapolis police department started moving toward more body weight control, sort of this jiu-jitsu training as opposed to physically striking people to gain compliance. >> are you referencing policy or

-- or training -- >> training. >> i believe so. >> about 15, 10, 15 years ago. and that was sort of highlighting the evolution, as you kind of described it in your direct examination, of policing since you've been a police officer. >> yes. >> that's one way it's evolved. >> yes. >> and when something changes per policy, can't wear weighted gloves anymore, for example, that's it, no more. agreed? >> yes. agree. yes. >> but if the policy -- if training, for example, evolves into a best practice, it doesn't prevent an officer from learning a technique he learned earlier in his career. just may not be the best practice anymore. >> so i pause just to -- when you say that they're learning something, but if it's not in alignment with our policy, then

that would not be prohibited. if -- if i'm hearing you correctly. >> let me try to explain. so if an officer was trained in a particular handcuffing technique and then they go to their defensive tactics training and they say, this is a better way to handcuff a suspect, it's not a policy change, it's just a best practice change. and they can still use the old way they did it. >> it would -- counselor, it would have to be something that the training staff would have to not just an officer saying i want to do it this way and -- i mean, it's something that would have to be authorized through our training staff, yes. >> so we can talk about that kind of thing with the training, the use of force defensive tactics training, right. that would be the better place to talk -- better people to talk to about that? >> yes. yes.

>> all right. now, when we're talking about active aggression and active resistance, sometimes those two things are happening simultaneously, agreed? >> it can be, yes. >> about back to -- now we were talking then about, again, the graham versus connor case and how that is incorporated into the minneapolis police department policy. i'm showing you exhibit 217 now, should be up in front of you. what we're basically talking about was a united states supreme court decision that outlined the objectively

reasonable use of force, standard, right? >> yes. >> and graham vs. connor is not limited to those three factors that you read, the graham vs. connor analysis. >> yes. >> those are three that are kind of listed, but ultimately it's not an all-inclusive list of considerations for the reasonableness of the use of force. agreed? >> that would be my understanding, yes. >> and in fact, what the policy reads is that the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of the reasonable officer on the scene rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight, right? >> yes. >> so we're looking in the instant and the moment based upon the objective standard, right? >> yes. >> now, the policy also includes that the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that

police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation, right? >> yes. >> and that's because when officers go to a situation, kind of like what we had talked about before, what can be very initially very minor can grow into something major. agreed? >> yes. >> now show you exhibit 219. you read a part of 5-304 which is threatening the use of force and deescalation. and i want to talk to you a little bit about deescalation.

have you heard the term sometimes you have to escalate to de-escalate? that phrase? >> i have not heard that. >> okay. in here, the policy talks about that officers shall consider verbally announcing their intent to use force, including displaying an authorized weapon as a threat of force. right? so sometimes an officer has to take out his gun, say, hey, that's a use of force in that instance, right -- >> yes. >> and if you don't listen to me, i'm going to use force. pretty clear indication that force could be used when you have a gun pointing at you. would you agree with that? >> yes. >> but other things such as chemical irritants or tasers, it's not limited to just the firearm, right? >> yes. >> so sometimes what you -- what an officer has to do is command the presence, right? they have to take control of the

situation. >> yes. >> and sometimes that's not particularly attractive, is it? >> could you explain? >> sure. the use of force is not something that people like to watch generally. right? >> objection, speculation. >> sustained. >> would you agree that the use of force is not an attractive notion? >> i would say that use of force is something that most officers would rather not use, yes. >> right. and you described in your direct examination how the single greatest way that the minneapolis police department could be judged is based upon how the public perceives its use of force. >> yes. >> so it has a tendency to garner a lot of attention. >> it can.

>> so much so that citizens have become more prone to record observed interactions with police, right? >> yes. >> something that you didn't have to deal with back in 1989, right? >> yes. >> so essentially what this policy 5-304 in terms of threatening the use of force, it's contained within these deescalation concepts, right? so sometimes you have to display a weapon to gain command so that you can de-escalate, right? >> yes. >> now when we're talking about is it fair to say that pretty much every single one of these use of force policies contains some phrase if reasonable or if practical -- there's limitations on the use of force, right? >> yes, there are limitations, yes. >> and they're -- and it's situation by situation, right? >> yes.

>> and again the language of the graham vs. connor and the policy contained by the minneapolis police department, it's the use of force has no precise objective singular rule. it's different in every case. >> yes. >> so the -- for example, in the deescalation policy 5-304b1, deescalation is advisable when it is safe and feasible. correct? >> yes. >> and sometimes deescalation, again, includes the use of force, right? the use of force can be a deescalation tactic. >> icounselor, i was thinking of the example of displaying your weapon, and so i

don't have a lot of knowledge in terms of physical force being used to actually de-escalate a situation. but the threatening use of force or threatening verbally, that's -- i'm more familiar with that. >> okay. again, if we were to talk to the use of force or defensive tactics -- >> objection, argumentive. >> overruled. >> the tactics -- >> objection, argumentative. >> overruled. >> the purpose of desescalation, agreed, is to attempt to slow down or stabilize the situation so that more time options and resources become available to the officer? >> yes. >> basically slow down, everybody kind of calm down, let's try to relax, right? >> yes. >> but it's a lot more the -- the process of deescalation is not just trying to talk somebody out of doing something. there are actions that are

important, there may be reactions that are importance. and the deescalation policy includes some examples of those things, right? >> yes. >> such as placing barriers between an uncooperative subject and an officer. >> yes. >> sometimes those barriers are another officer, right? >> yes. >> containing a threat, right? i mean, that's one of the examples in policy. >> yes. >> by containing a threat, that can include physically restraining someone so that they don't upset another person. right? >> yes. >> or cause another person to have a violent reaction toward them or officers, right? >> yes. >> moving from a position that exposes officers to potential threats to a safer position, right? so kind of retreating in certain circumstances. >> yes. >> reducing exposure to a potential threat using distance, cover, or concealment, right?

so hiding, say, behind a squad car, right? >> yes. >> avoiding physical confrontation, that's -- that's probably a pretty big one, right? >> yes. >> and using verbal techniques to calm an agitated subject or promote rational decisionmaking, that's kind of down toward the end. >> yes. >> and lastly, calling additional resources. right? the. >> yes. >> we talked about --

230 -- >> showing you exhibit 230 which is the emergency medical response. you'd agree that the policy requires minneapolis police employees to request an emergency medical service as soon as practical, right? >> yes. >> if a person comes into contact having an acute medical crisis and any delay in treatment could potentially aggravate the severity of the medical crisis, right? >> yes. >> so sometimes officers will call for ems, not thinking it's major issue, when it becomes apparent they can step up or request a quicker response from ems, right? >> yes. >> that is something that an officer can do to ensure the medical treatment of the suspect that they have -- or the person

that they're in contact with, right? >> conflict to ensure -- i'm sorry. to ensure -- >> sorry. it's been a long week. to ensure the medical continue of the suspect -- condition of the suspect, to help with them. >> yes. >> right. get ems there as quickly as is possible, right? >> yes. >> now we didn't talk a little -- we didn't talk about the maximal restraint technique. you're familiar with the policies surrounding that? >> yes. >> i'm going to show you what's been admitted as exhibit 225. can you describe what the ma xi mal restraint technique is? >> yes, counselor. the maximal technique has often been referred to as the hobble. and that is a -- it's a method

of if officers are dealing with a typically a combative or aggressive person, in order to protect them or property, it's placing basically attaching a -- a cord of the legs to the waist so that the person, the individual does not have free movement of their legs, so it's securing them, again, usually by their ankles if you're prone, bringing that up to your waist and securing it. the maximal restraint technique or the hobble, though, if it's used, a supervisor has to respond to the scene. you cannot transport anyone prone in that position due to the risks of the breathing. and so -- but that is the, counselor, that would be my understanding of the mrt or the maximal restraint technique.

>> so you talked a little bit in terms of the use of force, how officers are kind of re-evaluating their use of force from time to time, right? >> yes. >> they should be at least, right? and so if officers decide to use the maximal restraint technique and then decide, hey, we know -- and then later decide not to use it, that is kind of adjusting that use of force. >> i would -- counselor, with some clarity, i don't know if that -- what i mean by that is if you were to have a person handcuffed and prone on their stomach on the ground, pavement, and you had two officers, say, securing their legs to the back of the waist, you in a way are

still employing what that technique is about anyway. so -- so there can be some variances to that. >> sure. >> if that makes sense. >> it does. so let's assume that you've got two officers pulling the legs forward essentially employing that version of the maximal restraint but then they release and they say we're not going to hobble this person, employ the mrt. going from a decision to employ that technique backwards down the continuum in terms of the use of force. would you agree with that? >> counselor, just -- because these types of uses of force can be problematic in terms of there's a high risk to them. so meaning that if you're going to take that initiative to do that alternative version in the first place you'd want to get a

hold of a supervisor because something could happen in terms of that person. >> i'm not asking in terms of the policy. i'm asking in terms of the use of force and the critical decision making model. you described how the use of force to go through the critical decision making model. how much force am i going to use and sometimes you have to back off the use of force. agreed? >> yes. >> sometimes you have to go forward with the use of force and use more force. >> yes. >> it is a constant re-evaluation. yes? >> yes. >> when you have officers that make decisions that it warrants using the hobble device, but then later decide not to employ that device, that that critical decision making model in action. agreed? >> yes. >> and it would be a reduction in the use of force and may

still require supervisors to be on scene policy wise but it is a reduction in the use of force. agreed? >> just talking specifically the events of may 25th? >> general. >> generally. yes. >> but you would agree ultimately that all of the minneapolis police department policies relevant to the use of force, emergency medical response, emergency medical treatment, all of these policies are by their very language situationally dependent? right? they all say if the circumstances allow. if time permits. fit's safe. they have a qualifier to them. agreed? >> yes, i would agree with that.

>> i'm going to show you exhibit 231. which at the bottom of exhibit 231 is the crisis intervention policy. and the second page includes the definition. could you read the entire definition of what a crisis is? >> yes. an event or situation where an individual's safety and health are threatened by behavioral health challenges to include mental illness, developmental disabilities, substance use or overwhelming 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. the crisis may but not necessarily result in an up ward trajectory culminating in thoughts or acts possibly dangerous to himself, herself and or others. >> all right. so generally speaking, again, not relevant to the may 25th of 2020 incident, we'll get there in a minute, but when we talk about a general police response, sometimes the police may respond to something and the person they're dealing with is not in a crisis. agreed? >> yes. >> but other people may be perceiving what is happening and it could become a crisis to that person. >> objection. >> if you could rephrase.

>> sure. people who observe -- would you say that people who observe police interactions with people, especially the more physical or use of force types could turn into a crisis for an observer. >> objection, irrelevant. >> sustained as calling for speculation. >> in terms of the definition of crisis, may involve an individual's perception or experience of an event as an intolerable difficulty that exceeds that current resources and coping mechanisms. right? >> yes. >> that doesn't necessarily mean that you are -- the person with whom you are arresting or having contact with is going to be the person who will experience the crisis. agreed? >> objection, irrelevant. >> overruled. >> counselor, just respectfully,

so you are saying that the person who's witnessing a situation with the officers, that situation may cause them to be in crisis? >> correct. >> could potentially. >> right. and the crisis may but not necessarily result in an upward trajectory or intensity culminating in thoughts or acts that are possibly dangerous to him, her or others. right? >> counselor, just -- this is the person who's watching this? >> yes. >> it could. >> people are watching something that they believe as wrong or contrary to police policy, that may cause them to get upset and that level of volatility may grow throughout the course of the interaction. >> objection, irrelevant. calls for speculation and beyond the scope. >> overruled, it is within the scope. >> it could. >> because ultimately part of the training that minneapolis

police officers have to go through is how to deal with crowds who observe police interactions. right? >> yes. >> crowds that may be upset with police interaction. right? >> yes. >> there are classes through the training academy, there are classes through in-service specifically dealing with how to deal with crowd control. right? >> yes. >> and all of this is to revert in part back to that de-escalation process, as well. right? >> yes. >> part of it as a crowd grows or becomes more up set, part of it is to try to de-escalate which can involve trying to avoid a physical confrontation. right? >> yes, it could, yes. >> trying to stay safe, concealed and covered. right? >> yes. >> not yelling back at somebody. not engaging with them verbally. right? >> yes. >> and sometimes when an officer

tries to de-escalate a situation and someone is so upset, right, sometimes they don't hear what the officer telling them. would you agree with that? >> objection, speculation. >> that calls for speculation, sustained. >> is it possible generally speaking that someone's own crisis may prevent them from hearing what an officer is telling them? >> objection. >> that could happen. >> hold on. the objection sustained. the answer will be stricken. >> so you testified that you've watched the body cameras. correct? >> yes.

>> going to show you -- i don't know -- this is exhibit 1008. which is a 10-second approximately 5-second clip of alexander king's body worn camera. i gave you a copy of it. >> is this in evidence yet? >> no. that's what i'm telling you. i'm going to show you on your screen a short clip of a video to see if this would be contained in what you have watched. i need to --

you would agree that appears to be tacken from one of the officer's body cameras may 25th, 2020, at approximately 20:25:33? >> yes. >> again, watching it without sound -- do you at this point did you see what appear to be someone's reflection of the back of the squad car there? >> counselor, i did not. >> okay. >> it might be because of the brevity of the video -- >> the bumper of the squad video -- [ inaudible ] >> circle it for him? >> i'm sorry? >> use the cursor, the stylist to -- >> oh sure. i forgot. all this fancy technology here.