try boost. right now the beginning of the end of one of the most high profile trials in recent history. you see the sale there now and we're about to take you will live. closing arguments are going to be starting soon. jurors will decide whether or not to convict the former police officer charged with killing george floyd last year. as we come on the air breaking

news this morning. we have craig melvin, you have been in minneapolis now, we know that city and a lot of other cities across the country are getting ready for what could come. >> yeah, national guard troops on the ground here. they are on the ground in your own city as well and a number of major metro areas. it's a verdict that we expect to come this week. i was a a rally overnight not far from where i'm standing here in minneapolis and i would describe the mood on the ground as palpably anxious. there is a number of people

concerned that whatever the outcome there will be unrest. perhaps more violence. that's the concern here, and again the concern for the number of cities around the country. the closing arguments are expected to not last very long. we're stold told that steve will go and then it will be an hour to an hour and a half as well. then there will be a rebuttal. a p prominent attorney here in minneapolis, he was described to me a number of months ago as the johnnie cochran of the midwest. he is well known to jurors there in that courtroom. it is important for the prosecution that jerry blackwell

be the last voice those. he is standing by not far from where i am. this is your final faze of this trial that has gone on for three weeks now. >> we'll know more in just a couple of seconds. you mentioned who we will hear from, steve slisher, and that rebuttal from jerry black we'll. we will continue to watch for the jury instructions. the specific instructions that the jury will receive. these have been negotiated and argued mostly in private. those specific jury instructions

telling them what the law is and how they should apply when they begin their deliberation. a jury will be sequestered. and the three weeks of testimony and there is 15 jurors in that courtroom. they will be dismissed. 12 people will be sequestered. something that we learned last week when the judge gave the jury the final instruction, he said come with a backpack to come for the long and hope for the short. this is a process that we will be waiting for. if they have a question during deliberations they will this will be one of the final times. you'll have the full jury panel,

the full attorneys and judge in that courtroom. it is really up to the jury how long or how short they decide to deliberate and we'll find out when that comes back. >> shaq, thank you, i want to bring in now as we wait for court to get back in session. former prosecutor, and charles coleman, paul, let me start with you and we should note that closing arguments and the trial proceedings were supposed to start roughly five minutes ago. sometimes they start right on time, sometimes it is a couple minutes late. the second this begins we'll get into this live. paul if i interrupt you that is live. in the meantime as you look into what we will see in the next couple hours or so, what should we be listening for? what are you going to be looking

for in this frankly last chance for the prosecution and sdmechbs. >> lawyers get only two chances to talk directly to the jury. closing statements are important, they will be waving them into a cohaernt story. they called 11 civilian witnesses. 10 police officers, and 10 medical and forensic experts. they were all united for the elements of the prosecution. so that's what they'll say in their closing statement. that chauvin used excessive force and that killed george floyd. >> let me po bring you in, a few months ago i discovered like a lot of folks here in the state of minnesota, that to prove the

charges they do not have to prove that the knee on floyd's neck was the sole cause of his death, they only have to prove that it was a substantial contributing factor to his death. explain, kristin, why that is significant and what that could mean for jury deliberations. >> yeah, draig. -- craig, it helps them prove that it was not the sole cause, as you mention. medical testimony is not exact, right? so far the prosecution can prove a substantial factor and that's the element they need to focus on. so if there was other contributing factors like carbon monoxide, enlarged heart, drug overdose, they can contribute to the medical condition that he was exhibiting, but as long as

the main cause of death was chauvin's knee to the neck, specifically the oxygen derivation, that's all that the prosecution has to prove. >> thank you we're going to go back live now to the minneapolis courtroom. let's listen in to these proceedings. >> i ask that you follow along while i read them to you. there will be a point why i will ask you to put them under your share so you can listen to the closing arguments of county till. >> it is my duty to give you the rules of law that you must apply in arriving at your verdict. you have now heard the evidence and soon you will hear the arguments of council. i will instruct you in the laws applicable to this case. you must follow and apply the rules of law as i give them to

you even if you believe the law is or should be different. you have been given a copy of the instructions to follow along as i read, and you may take it with you when you retire to the jury room. you should listen carefully and attentively as i read them to you now. please note that the titles of the individual sections are not part of the instructions but placed as headings to assist you in finding a topic. deciding questions of fact is your exclusive responsibility. in doing so, you must consider all of the evidence that you have heard and seen in this trial and you must disregard anything that you have heard or seen elsewhere about this case. i have not by these instructions, or any ruling or express intended to indicate my opinion regarding the facts or the outcome of this case. if i have said or done anything to kind case such an opinion, you are to disregard it.

you must consider these charges as a whole. the order in which the instructions are given is of now significance. you're free to consider the issues in any order that you wish. the defendant is presumed innocent to the charges made. the presumption remains with the department. the department -- the fact that the department has been brought before the court by the ordinary processes of the law and is on trial should not be considered by you in any way. the defendant does not have to prove his innocence. proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the prudent way they men and women would act. it does not mean a fanciful or capricious doubt.

a fact may be proven by direct or circumstantial evil or both. a fact is proven by direct evidence when it is proven by witnesses that testify as to what they saw, heard, or experienced. or by physical evidence of the fact itself. it is proven by circumstantial evidence when the existence can be inferred from other facts proven in the case. for example if a person watching deer crossing a snow covered field, a person has direct evidence because they see it. if a person does not see deer, but finds deer tracks in the snow, the deer tracks are circumstantial evidence that deer walked in the feel because it can be reasonably inferred from the tracks found in the snow. attorneys are officers of the court. it's their duty to make objections they think proper and

to argue their clients cause. however their remarks are not evidence. if the attorneys or i have made or should make any statement as to what evidence is, the difference from your recollection of the evidence, disregard the statement and rely on your own memory. if an argument has any statement of the law that differs from the law i give you disregard the attorney's statement. the statement brought three charges, or counts, against the confident. they must consider the evidence as if it was the only accusation before you. and you must state your findings in a separate verdict, uninfluenced that your act is in favor of or against the defendant. the defendant may be guilt or

not guilty under the weight you give it and the court's instructions. i'm about to instruct you of the law. i'm going to define a few words and phrases that appear more than once. they are bold in the written copy of the instructions that you are receiving. you should use these for the words and phrases of your deliberation. enacted means more than a step forward, and the defendant did that act with the intent to cause that. there are several forms of bodily harm. bodily harm means physical pain, injury, illness, or any impairment of a person's physical condition. substantial bodily harm means bodily harm that involves a temporary but substantial

disfigurement that causes a temporary or substantial loss of a body member or organ. great bodily harm means injury that creates a high probability of death. that causes serious permanent disfigurement, or a permanent or protracted loss of any bodily member, organ, or other serious bodily harm. to cause test, cause death, or caused the death means the defendant's act or acts were a substantial causal factor in the death of george floyd. the defendant is criminally liable for all of the consequences of his actions includes those consequences brought about by one or more intervening causes if such intervening causes were the natural result of the defendant's acts. the fact that others contribute

to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability. however, the defendant is not criminally liable if a supercedeing cause comes after the events. it would not otherwise have occurred. to know, to have knowledge, or knew requires only that the defendant believes that the specified facts exist. intentional means the defendant has the purpose to do the thing or cause the acts testifies to, or believe it will cause a result. the defendant must have knowledge of the facts necessary to make his conduct criminal and they are set forth after the word intentionally or intentional. with intent that, intent to, or intended means the defendant has a purpose to dot thing or cause

the result specified or believes the act performed will cause that. police officer means an employee of a always agency that is charged with the presengs and detection of crime and the enforcement of the general really laws of the state of minnesota and a full power of arrest. a law enforcement agency is a unit of state or local government to grant full powers of arrest and to charge a person with the duties of preventing and detecting crime and enforcing the general criminal laws of the state of minnesota. the deaf this in addition of any word of phrase with a specific

legal meeting will appear later in these charges. the defendant is charged with count one in connection with the death of george floyd. under minnesota law a person causing the death of another without intent to cause the death of any person whiling or attempting to commit a defense is guilty in the crime of the second degree. the elements of the crime while committing a felony is the death of george floyd must be proven. third, at the time of causing the death they were committing or attempting to commit the offense in the third degree. it must prove that they mitted or attempted to commit the

felony of assault in the third degree. first, the defendant assaulted george floyd. the intentional inflection of bodly harm requires proof that they applied force to another person without that person's consent and that it resulted in bodily harm. second the defendant inflicted bodily harm on george floyd if is not necessary for the state to prove that they intended to inflict the bodily harm. only that they intended to commit the assault and this he sustained bodily harm as a result of the asuggestion. if you find that each of the

elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty beyond this charge. unless you find the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is line for this crime. the defendant is charged with count two in the murder of the third degree. under miss law the person causing the death of another, is eminently dangerous to others. without the intent to cause the death of any person. the defendant is charged with committing this crime.

the third element is that he was immentally charged. and he acted with disregard for human life. but it must have been committed with an indifference. the fifth element, they are placed on or about may 12th. if you find that each of the elements have been found, they

will be discharged. unless you find that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable for this crime committed by another person or persons the defendant is charged with count three in connection with the death of george floyd. anyone taking a risk causes the death of another is difficult of this and they are charged with aiding in the crime. the death of george floyd must be proven. second, they called the death of george floyd and they created an

unreasonable risk and took a chance of death or great bodily harm. it is intentional conduct that they may not have intended to be vulnerable but it is recognized as involving a strong project if you find each of the elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt doubt, the defendant is guilty beyond this charge. if you find they have not been guilty of this beyond a reasonable doubt. you fend they committed this crime by a person or other persons. the following instructions apply to all three oaf the charges that i have just given you. the defendant is difficult of the crime committed by a person

or persons and they have saided in the commission of that crime and made no crime to prevent the crime before it was committed. intentional role includes aiding, advising, counciling, or procuring another to commit the crime. the defendants presence or actions include aiding persons or persons that were committing a crime. second, the defendant intended that his presence or actions aide the commission of that crime. if the defendant intentionally aided a person or persons or advises hires, or procured the other person or persons to get it, they are guilty of trying to commit the other trim. if it is a presevenble crime.

they are guilty of aiding in the crime if a person or persons commit the crime. the defendant is not dlt of aiding, procuring one of the charges crimes unless that crime is committed. the defendant, the state rather, the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally aided another person in committing the charged crime. no crime is committed if a police officers actions is justified by the officer's use of reasonable force in the line of duty in affecting a law enforcement arrest or preventing an escape from custody. the kind and degree of force that a police officer may lawfully use is limited by what a reasonable police officer in the same situation would believe to be necessary. any use of force online that is

not reasonable. to determine if the actions of the police officer were reasonable, you must look at those facts which a reasonable officer in a same situation would have known. you must decide if the actions were objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the facts and circumstances, and without regard to the subjective state of mind, intentions, or actions. the defendant is not guilt if he used force has authorized by law. to prove guilty the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of force was not authorized by law. you are the sole judges. there are no hard and fast rules to guide you in this respect. in determining believability and weight of testimony, you may take in fact of the interest or

the lack of interest in the outcome. >> it appears as the feed coming in from that minneapolis courtroom has frozen from the courtroom. we're going to keep an eye on what is happening there this is a critical component of the case. they said it would be very important because this is the last they will take away. i also want to bring back in paul butler. i believe that paul is getting up now as well, but shaq, walk through why this is so significant and where we're going next. >> this is what was being

associated since thursday, since the last -- since witness testimony wraps up. they were telling the jury these instructions, telling them what the law is and how they should define and apply that law. what each term means, what reasonableness means. but going through in the specific technicalities of what the jury should be saying attention to as they're listening to this. and once we hear the closing arguments begin. they will likely to the what

judge they will say it approves that derek chauvin was guilt or that the defense will say there was reasonable doubt there. looks like we might have got the feedback so i will let judge kay cahill continue. >> this is not to be used as evidence of the character. the parties introduced demonstrative exhibits. it was to assist you in understanding the witnesses testimony, and to understand the facts disclosed by documents, testimony, and other evidence received during the trial. if a chart, summary, was not continued you should disregard

the summary, and determine the facts from the under lying comments. you are to use the definitions in your deliberations. if i have not defined a word or phrase, you should apply the common and ordinary meaning about that phrase. you must not concern yourself with the reasons for the rulings because they are controlled by rules of evidence. i did not intend to indicate the weight to be given to the testimony and the evidence. it is all of the evidence. they are ordered stricken or i told you to disregard. with that i ask you to put your instructions under your chair as we listen to the closing arguments of council.

may it please the court and council, members of the jury. his name was george perry floyd junior. he was born on october 14, 1973 in fayetteville, north carolina.

his parents were george floyd senior and larcinia floyd. you met george floyd's brother, and you heard all about cisi floyd. you heard about the special bond that she and george floyd shared during his life. you near about their relationship. how he would always take time, special company, to be with his mother. how he would still cuddle with her in the fetal position. you heard that. and from george floyd's brother you learned all about george's

childhood. and during his time growing up in that house, george floyd was surrounded by people he knew, people who knew him, people he recognized. a familiar face to pick out in a crowd. people need that. george floyd was surrounded by people who cared about him throughout his life. throughout his childhood in that house in adolescence and into adulthood. on may 25, 2020, george floyd died. he was face down on the pavement

on 38th and chicago in minneapolis. nine minutes, 29 seconds. in this time, he struggled desperate to breathe. to make enough room in his hest to breathe. but the force was too much. he was trapped. he was trapped with an unyielding pavement underneath him as unyielding as the men who held him down. pushing him. a knee to the neck, a knee to the back. twisting his fingers, holding his legs, nine minutes and 29 seconds on him. the lungs in his chest unable to

expand because there wasn't enough room to breathe. george floyd tried. he pushed his shoulder against the pavement to lift himself to give himself enough room to breathe. but it cutting his skin. the pavement lacerated his knuckles. he was to desperate to breathe that he pushed with his face. to lift himself to hope his chest to give his lungs room to

breathe. the pavement teared into his skin and he was losing strength. not super human strength. there was no super human strength that day. there was no super human strength because there is no such thing as a super human. those exist in comic books. 38th and chicago is a very real place. not super humans. only humans. just a human, just a man, lying on the pavement being pressed upon desperately crying out. a grown man, crying out for his mother. a human being and in that time and in that place while he was surrounded in life by people that knew him. faces he could pick out, there

was no one there that he knew. he was surrounded by strangers. strangers, all of them, nine minutes and 29 seconds. he was surrounded by strangers, not a familiar face to say his final words. but he did say them to someone. he said them to someone who he did not know by name, but he knew him by the uniform he wore. and the badge he wore. and he called him mr. officer. that's what he called him. mr. officer. mr. officer would help. you call the police when you need help and he pleaded with mr. officer. george floyd's final words on may 25, 2020 were please, i

can't breathe. and he said those words to mr. officer. he said those words to the defendant. he asked for help. with his very last breath. but mr. officer did not help. the defendant did not help, he sayed on top of him and continues to push him down. to grind his knees, to twist his hands and twist his fingers into the handcuffs that bound him. looking at him, staring down at times. the horrified bystanders that gathered and watched this unfold. the motto of the minneapolis police department is to protect with courage and to serve with

compassion. george floyd was not a threat to anyone. he was not trying to hurt anyone. he wasn't trying to do anything to anyone. facing george floyd that day, that did not require one ounce of courage. and none was shown on that day. no courage was required. all that was required was a little compassion. and none was shown on that day. george floyd said "i'm not trying to win." this was a call about a count er counterfeit $20 billion. it was a call for compassion. humans need that, people need that. more fundamental than that, and more practical, what george

floyd needed was some oxygen. that's what he needed. he needed to breathe. because people need that, humans need that that breathe. and he said that, and the defendant heard him say that. over and over he heard him but he just didn't listen. he continued to push him down, to grind into him, to shimmy. to twist his hand. for nine minutes and 29 seconds. george floyd beged until he could speak no more and the defendant continued his assault. when he was unable to speak, the defendant continued when he was unable to breathe the defendant continued. beyond the point that he had a pulse. the defendant continued this

assault. nine minutes and 29 seconds. when the ambulance arrived, the ambulance was here and the defendant continued. he stayed on top of him. he would not get up, he would not let up. he stayed on him, grinding into him, continuing to twist his fingers to hold him down. he had no pulse. he was not breathing. he was not responsive and the defendant had to know what was right beneath him. right beneath him. you saw the video. and you saw the point when the ambulance arrived and finally after a paramedic got out, he did not let up, and the paramedic tapped him and they got up and lifted mr. floyd on

to that gurny and he saw the way that he was -- that there was nothing there. his head had to be held to prevent it from valuing to the ground. he was limp. he had to know. he was on top of him and he was on top of him. on top of him. sometimes you ask for the truth, sometimes you insist on the truth. and the defendant was on top of him for nine minutes and 29 seconds. he had to know. he had to know. the medical examiner would find the that there was pulmonary

arrest complicating restraint and next compression. what you saw the defendant and the other officers doing to george floyd caused his death. and the medical examiner ruled the death a homicide. death at the hands of another. what the defendant did to george floyd killed him. it was ruled a homicide, and the defendant is charged with murder. he is charmed with murder and manslaughter, and the defendant at the time was a police officer. maybe it is hard, it may be hard for any of you to imagine a police officer doing something like this. but remember, in jury selection, we talked ant bias and we talked about setting biases and

preconceived notions behind. well imagine a police officer committing a crime might be the most difficult thing you have to set aside. that's just not the way that we think of police officers. we just the police, we trust the police to get there. we believe the police will respond to a call for help. and this runs deep, it's difficult and i want you to consider that even after the bystanders, after they saw what they saw, after they saw this shocking display of abuse of police power and a man murdered in front of them, they called the police. donald williams, he saw this, you heard him, he testified, he called the police. a 9-year-old.

judiah, what did she suggest? you need to call the police on the police. that's our expectation. even have seeing this. even have witnessing this, our expectation is that the police are going to help. and with condition, with good reason, right? policing is a most noble profession. it is. it is. and to be very clear, this case is called the state of minnesota versus derek chauvin. it's not the state of minnesota versus the police. it's not. policing is a noble profession, and it is a profession. you met several minneapolis police officers in this trial. they took the stand, they

testified, and make no mistake this is not a prosecution of the police. this is of the defendant. and there is nothing worse for good police than bad police, that don't follow the rules and procedure. that doesn't follow training and ignores the policies and motto of the department. to protect with courage and to serve with compassion. they told you what that badge that he wears over his heart means, it's a public service. it's a public trust. they're there to help us. it's a professional organization. there are standards. there are rules. there is a code of conduct, there is a use of force policy. there is extensive training. the police are first responders.

you cull them for help and they help us. they have cpr training. more training than simply a use of force. more to policing than putting handcuffs on people and hauling them away. there is other kinds of training for procedural justice. there is defensive training, defensive tactics, and decaselation. all of the training, hundreds and hundreds of hours of training. you bet, but the people who staff the training center, they told you we don't train this. they told you that. the sankty sanctity of life, the

protection for all of the public, all of the human beings that make up the public, the defendant, he didn't do that. that day his badge just wasn't in the right place. the defendant was a police officer. he was. and again, you need to set aside the notion that it's impossible for a police officer to do something like this. the defendant is on trial not for being a police officer. he is on trial for what he did. that's what he did on that day. nine minutes and 29 seconds. that's what he did. he didn't follow the training. those hundreds of hours of training that he had, he did not follow the defendants use of

force rules. he did not perform cpr, he knew better, he just didn't do better. he just didn't do better. remember in opening statements? council said the defendant followed the rules and followed his training. you heard evidence of that. to hear evidence of that from the stand, did you hear that or did you hear something different? the chief of police violated their use of force policy. he violated their deescalation policy. violated the duty to render emergency aide. you heard the trainer, we don't train this. this is not who we are. no, that representation was simply wrong nap is just a story. what the defendant did was not policing.

what the defendant did was an assault. they are explaining that the course has instructions on second degree murder. if you commit a felony level assault and a person dies, as a result of your assault, you're guilty of murder, it's as simple as that. and what the defendant did was a straight up felony assault. it was dra due us to, it was disproportionate, and he did it on purse. no question. this was not an accident. he did what he did on purpose. and it killed george floyd.

that killed george floyd. if he betrayed the badge and everything that it stood for, that's not how it is trained, a prosecution. it's a pro-police prosecution. the defendant abandoned his values, abandoned the training and killed a man. and why? right out in the public. right out in broad daylight in front of several bystanders as they looked in shock and horror. why? well, this all started over a call of an alleged counterfeit $20 bill. george floyd's life was taken

for something worth far, far less, far less. you saw the photo. you saw the body language. you can learn a lot about someone by looking at their body language. the defendant facing down that crowd. they were pointing cameras at him, recording him, telling him what to do, challenging his authority. his ego, his pride, not the kind of pride that makes you do better, be better, the kind of ego-based pride that the defendant was not going to be told what to do, he was not going to let these bystanders tell him what to do. he was going to do what he wanted, how he wanted, for as long as he wanted. there was nothing, nothing they could do about it, because he had the authority. he had the power of the badge and the other officers. the bystanders were powerless.

they were powerless to do a thing. the defendant, he chose pride over policing. charles mcmillian, you remember when he testified. he had the glasses. if any of you in the front row, when he walked by happened to notice his shoes. if you looked at his shoes you probably saw your reflection in those shoes. he dressed for court like it was the most important day of his life. interesting man. he was there. he is sort of narrating this horrific scene throughout. you hear him in the video. he called out to george floyd. he said, you can't win. you can't win. george floyd replied, i'm not trying to win. i'm not trying to win. i'm scared. the defendant -- the defendant was trying to win.

he wasn't going to be told what to do. he wasn't going to take a challenge to his authority. he was trying to win. and george floyd paid for it with his life. now also need to be clear, this is not the trial of george floyd. george floyd is not on trial here. you have heard some things about george floyd, that he struggled with drug addiction, that he was being investigated for allegedly passing a fake $20 bill, that there was never introduced he knew was fake in the first place. but he is not on trial. he didn't get a trial when he was alive. and he is not on trial here. defense claims he was non-compliant.

non-compliant. well, let's re-visit what happened before the 9 minutes and 29 seconds, before that. it's memorial day. may 25, 2020. george floyd is sitting in a car in the driver's seat with two friends. previously, he had been in cup foods. he had been in the store. he was walking, he was talking, he was breathing. as alive as any person, any human in this room. back to the car. he is with his friends and there's a tap at the window. he looks to his left and a -- this is what he sees. this is what he sees. within seconds of the approach, officer lane tapped on the

window, within seconds he pulls his gun and holds it inches from george floyd's face and starts shouting profanities, show me your fin' hands, show me your fin' hands, screaming at him. this is within seconds. you can tell a lot about someone by looking at their body language. how does mr. floyd look in this photo? terrified? the officer on the driver's side and an officer on the passenger's side. lane orders floyd to put his hands on the steering wheel. he does. that's not resistance. that's compliance. lane orders floyd to get out of the car. he does. that's not resistance. that's compliance. they order him -- they want him

handcuffed. he is handcuffed. that's not resistance. that's compliance. on the handcuffs, you recall the testimony, they weren't properly double locked. so they continue to ratchet. they're not on correctly. they're on too tight. you listen to the videos, throughout the videos, you can hear the sound of the handcuffs ratcheting tighter and tighter. mr. floyd is trying to explain to the police that his wrists hurt. impervious to pain, please. his wrists hurt. no one listens to him. it continues. they tell him to go over to the dragon wok. he goes over to the dragon wok. that's not resistance. that's compliance. they ask him to sit down. he sits down. not resistance, compliance. not trying to escape. not trying to evade arrest.

not trying to assault anybody, shoot anybody, stab anybody, punch anybody, no. compliance. sits down on the ground. they ask him his name. he gives his name. he spells it. that's not resistance. that's compliance. they ask him to get up. he gets up. they ask him to go across the street. he goes across the street. where is the resistance? where is that? they take him over to the car. okay? they take over to the car. george floyd is a big guy. you can see here. i mean, he is almost as big as officer lane. he is a big guy. he is a big person. the back of a squad car is not. that's what they wanted him to get into. to george floyd, that looked -- he looked at that. what do you think that looked like? like a little cage.

he tried to explain himself to the officers that he had anxiety, that he had claustrophobia. he explained this over and over. they wanted him to get in the back of this little car. and you know, he just wasn't able to bring himself to do it. he wasn't able to bring himself to do it. >> pull your legs in. >> okay. let me count to three and i'm going in. please. >> he is trying to work up the ability to get in the car. he is explaining himself repeatedly. you can see this is where the defendant and officer tao start coming into the scene. we will look at what they saw in a minute. they start to come to the scene.

19-year veteran of the police force with all of the training that that involves, over 800 hours of training, 40-hour crisis intervention training course, a scenario-based training where they are taught to recognize the signs of someone who is experiencing a crisis, a crisis. he couldn't bring himself to get in. sometimes, people can't bring themselves to get in. this is not new. this is not groundbreaking. people have emotions. people have things happen to them. the police train for this. they recognize this. you don't get to meet the police on your best day very often. you don't call the police and say, everything is fine, just wanted you to know. right? that doesn't happen. there's a whole range of humanity out there who have a

whole range of different issues. it could be anything. it could be a death in the family. that can cause an extreme emotional response. recall when officer lane approached the car, george floyd talked about losing his mother. he lost her in 2018. those wounds still right there on the surface. emotion. it could involve a divorce, bad financial news. mental illness, mental health issues like drug and alcohol abuse. all of those things can cause someone to not resist but just not be able to bring themselves to comply at that moment, at that time. and this is nothing new. they train for it. they plan for it. they prepare for it. they have a policy on it. right? recognizing persons