- come on, connor. i won "most promising debut novel" at the 2009 nantucket book festival, non-fantasy or science fiction division. i think i can handle a wedding toast. - thanks, tom. i don't know what that is, but that's very cool of you. - aw, brotherly love. - that's so sweet. - not all heroes wear capes, right? - i am just so excited to go to a party for grown-ups-- open bar, dancing, bacon-wrapped dates. - spags will have b-wrapped-d's, for sure. champagne fountain. i think they're releasing, like, 100 doves. - do you know what happens to those doves after they're released? - oh, yeah. they get eaten by hawks. it's gnarly. - oh, my god. i am so glad we didn't do any of that at our wedding. - well, we barely had a wedding. - yeah, that was definitely the right choice. - [strained] yeah. definitely. anyone else need coffee? [mischievous music] ♪ ♪ - oh, my god! - gosh. phew. [overlapping chatter] ooh! - hey. - hey! - what're you watching? - i was just doing--my email. just sending, receiving. bcc, c

>> i don't know the exact number but yes. >> the client versus connor factor -- [silence] you talkedyesterday and today about this factor and you've done thousands of use of force reviews, you're comfortable discussing grand versus connor? >> yes. >> i asked -- [silence] [background noises] >> you reviewed the minneapolis police department policy that incorporates grand versus connor? >> correct. >> when it's in the minneapolis police department policy -- within the minneapolis police department policy, i'd ask the court, i'd like you to publish exhibit 106. exhibit 106, there is the incorporation of grand versus connor. >> correct. >> the authorized use of force in the state of minnesota exists primarily through state stature? >> yes. >> in terms of the police department policy, that has to be consistent with grand versus connor? >> correct. >> it's fair to say there's more to the analysis of grand versus, then simply the severity of the crime, immediacy of the threat or active resistance? >> yes. >> in fact, with the ultimate police department policy says here is because the test o

are you familiar with the graham versus connor factors? >> i am. >> and can you just very briefly provide your definition and your -- how you look at those facts? >> so, in my 35 years of teaching, it's not just dealing with tactics, but it's dealing with providing an officer the mindset that what they need to justify to use various tactics that they were trained in. and the standard of graham versus connor is, you know, what would a reasonable officer have done in a similar set of circumstances that you're doing. >> now, the graham versus connor factor, the first one is the severity of the crime at issue, correct? >> yes. >> how do you analyze that graham versus connor factor? >> so, i know in my experience, and the experience of officers that i've been in contact with is that the higher risk an arrest may be, like say an armed bank robber. an armed bank robber, you would pull your gun, order him to the ground to take them into custody. you know they're a danger, you know they're a threat level right off the bat. whereas, i can't imagine

>> yes. >> in the connor world that would justify lesser force, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> the second factor is whether the person would pose some sort of an immediate threat, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> can you describe to the jury what is a threat? >> i threat could be perceived as something where an officer feels that the person is going to assault them or going to assault someone else. >> and is identifying a level of threat, is that an objective standard, a subjective standard, how is that viewed? >> it could be subjective. >> council? >> dependent on the officers, their training and experience. >> we talk about threat i would like to distinguish between a threat and a risk there is a difference between a threat and risk? >> yes. >> explained that difference to the jury. >> so typically police officers, going into situation there's a risk factor involved just based on the nature of policing. i tried to describe it when in teaching i describe it as if you're going into the middle of the movie you don't know what's going on so you're trying to figure

[silence] >> yes i believe so. >> the graham versus connor factor if you have a second. you talked yesterday and today about the graham d connor factors and you have done thousands of use of force reviews and you're comfortable discussing graham versus connor. >> yes i am. >> you me just a second. >> you reviewed the minneapolis police department policy that incorporates graham versus connor in the minneapolis police pdepartment policy i asked the court -- i would like you to exhibit 106, there is exhibit 106, there is the incorporation of grandma versus connor. >> yes. >> the authorized use of force in the state of minnesota exist primarily from a state statute, correct. >> that statute in terms of the police department policy have to be consistent with the graham graham versus connor. >> it's fair to say there's mora to the analysis of grandma versus connor of the severity of the crime, the threat or the active resistance. >> yes. >> in fact with the ultimateat police department policy says here is because the test of reasonableness under the fourth amendment is not ca

, right, the connor factors and i'd like you to-- well, first of all, the policy reference, the connor factors that you just mentioned. >> yes. if you could display 217 page two. and we have three bullet points here under the connor factors. and that is the officers supposed to look at the totality of the circumstances, right? >> yes. >> and the three bullets here that the officer is supposed to consider are what? >> the officer should consider the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others. and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. >> and fair to say these three different considerations are things that you can attribute to the subject, correct? >> yes. >> that's not subject's conduct, not someone else's? >> yes. >> and of course, it has to be judged by a reasonable police officer on the scene at the time, correct? >> yes. >> now, do you recall, and obviously, you're here talking about what happened on may 25, 2020 involving george floyd. do you recall why the officers

>> yes . >> and then that state statute has to be consistent with the graham versus connor factors? >> correct. >> and fair to say that there is more to the analysis of graham versus connor than simply the severity of the crime, the immediacy of the threat or the act of resistance? >> yes. >> and in fact what the ultimate police department policy says here is because the test of reasonableness under the 4th amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical definition, its practice application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case including those three factors. >> correct. >> not limited to those three factors. >> correct. >> after we discuss -- after the policy discusses those three factors,le boy is is he goes on to read that the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of the reasonable officer? >> correct. >> on the scene? >> correct. >> earnrather than the 20/20 vi of behindsight. >> correct. >> and the next paragraph says it must embody allowance for the fact that the police officers a

connor. >> correct. >> in terms of minneapolis, the same standard we use here. and that's in the minneapolis police department use of force policy five - 303. correct. >> i do know the exact number but yes probably so. >> note the grant versus connor. [inaudible]. [inaudible]. >> you talked yesterday and today about the factors and you have done thousands of use of force reviews. you're comfortable discussing graham versus connor. >> yes. [inaudible]. [inaudible]. [inaudible]. >> so then you've reviewed the minneapolis police department policies that incorporate graham v. connor, correct and in the minneapolis police department policy. [inaudible]. i would ask the court to and i would like you to publish exhibit 106. and there is an exhibit 106, there is the graham v. connor. now the authorized use of force in the state of minnesota exists primarily from a state statute. >> correct. >> in terms of the police department policy, it has to be consistent with the graham v. connor practice, correc

connor. there's a standard of generally accepted police practices and all those it into the constellation of what is objective reasonableness as viewed as a reasonable police officer on the scene. >> sergeant stiger spoke to graham. the chief spoke to graham factors. why do we need yet another person to talk about the graham factors? >> your honor, because he comes from a completely different perspective. i think it's important to first focus on when we're looking at exclusion it would be under minnesota rule 403, q-tip evidence that would be unduly cumulative, unfairly cumulative, and necessarily so. you have to look at the importance of the relevant evidence here. the use the force or offers use the force is a complete defense to all of the charges in this case and so it is primary. it's that front and center. it's important that we counter what is sort of the goldilocks syndrome in viewing expert witnesses. this witness is too old. this witness is just an administrator. this witness is not

nelson: we heard a lot about the grandma versus connor factors are you familiar? >> i am. >> can you very briefly provide your definition or how you look at those facts? >> in my 35 years of teaching not just dealing with tactics by providing an officer the mindset what they need to justify the tactics they were trained in. the standard of graham versus connor what would a reasonable officer have done inin a similar set of circumstances that you are doing. nelson: the first is the severity of the crime how do you analyze that factor? >> i know in my experience that i have been experience with the higher risk of a armed bank robber you would pull your gun order them to the ground and take them into custody. you know the threat level right off the bat. and how we times i have been exposed to or see other officers deal with a simple thing as traffic stop or jaywalking with a minor offense in the end up in a fight for their life just because of the individual they are contacting. >> what is the initial response or is it something that evolves over time? >> the initial

and foremost in the quotes proposed instructions with the authorized use of force and graham versus connor and the standards set forth in the proposed order proposed jury instruction did not include reference to the totality of the circumstances and it does not include the recognition of hindsight's in the language language regarding hindsight and did not include without the language without regard to his own state of mind intention or motivation and we addressed all of those and compared both the standard jury instruction and we compared that with the jury instruction provided in nor as well as the state defense proposed instruction and the, i would also note that the courts in terms it appeared to the defense that the court in terms of the inclusion of the three principal graham factors has emitted two of the three and i think we've addressed those in the court has taken those matters under consideration. in terms of our second issue your honor the defense was requesting a jury instruction pursuant to state versus -- to inform the jury that mr. hall had invoked his fifth amendment privil

connor factor? >> in my experience, the higher risk an arrest may be, like say an armed bank robber, you know, armed bank robber, you would pull your gun, order them to the ground to take them into custody. you know their danger, their threat level right off the bat, whereas i can't imagine how many times i've been exposed to, personally, or have seen other officers dealing with a simple thing as a traffic stop or a jaywalking violation or some minor offense, and they end up in a fight for their life just because of the conduct of the individual they're contacting. >> okay. so, in terms of the severity of issue, is it always what was the initial response, in your -- or is it something that evolves over time? >> well, the initial response, of course, is important, but it's really how the person you're interacting with as a law enforcement officer responds to you. >> okay. and that's -- does that go into the second graham factor? >> it does, the imminent threat. >> right. and can you just explain the

connor factors. you have done thousands of use of force reviews. you are comfortable discussing graham versus connor? >> yes, i am. >> i would ask -- >> objection. can we have a sidebar? >> sure. my seminars are a great tool to help young homeowners who are turning into their parents. now, remember, they're not programs. they're tv shows. you woke up early. no one cares. yes. so, i was using something called homequote explorer from progressive to easily compare home insurance rates. was i hashtagging? progressive can't help you from becoming your parents, but we can help you compare rates on home insurance with homequote explorer. guess what. the waiter doesn't need to know your name. what do we want for dinner? guess what. burger... i want a sugar cookie... wait... i want a bucket of chicken... i want... ♪♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win. it's so busted, you can't use this part of the screen. definitely cracked every phone i've owned. (vo) you broke your phone. so verizon broke the rules. for the first time eve

connor, you have to understand what we mean by threat. first, when we're talking about the threat that an individual may present, it's specific. threat of something. someone who is running away may present a threat of escape or of assaulting an officer or the like. and further, we can define threat, we know that threat exists when the individual has the physical ability and the opportunity and the apparent intention to cause whatever specific harm we're analyzing. so, for example, imagine someone who is just standing there with nothing in their hands. they don't have the physical ability to hit an officer with a tire iron. so there's no threat that an officer will be hit with a tire iron. but imagine somebody with a tire iron, but who is 50 feet away. they have the physical ability, but they don't have any opportunity, they're too far away in that moment to present a threat. and then we can imagine someone who has a tire iron and they're two or three feet away, but they're changing a tire at the time. they have the ability or opportunity,

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 i

. >> now, we were talking then about, again, the grand versdz connor case and i'm showing you exhibit 217 now. it should be up in front of you. what we're basically talking about is united states supreme court decision that outlined the objectively reasonable use of force standard, right? >> yes. >> and grand versus connor is not limited to those three factors that you were read before, right? the grand versus connor analyses. >> yes, correct. >> 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 2020 vision of hindsight, right? >> yes. >> so we're looking at it in the instant and the moment based upon the objective standard, right? >> yes. >> now, the policy also includes that the calculus of reasonableness must allow for the fact that police officers ar

>> based on my training and experience, every agency that i've seen base it on graham versus connor.s pretty standard. >> right. but in terms of the actual tactics of the use of force, right? so a department may authorize their use of a particular too many and another department may not authorize that too many. >> correct. >> and thus both uses of force or potential uses of force, and the instruments to use that force may be different. >> yes, but they all have to fall into the standards. >> understood. but one department could determine that that type of an technique is reasonable while another department may not. >> correct. >> so another way of saying that reasonable minds can differ. >> correct. >> you've testified that you have been a trainer for the los angeles police department. >> yes, sir. >> so when you talk about your training experience, are you doing it from like you are teaching, lecturing, or are you doing the training on the mats straining the techniques or both? >> both. >> you've never been trained by the minneapolis police department? >> no, i have not. >> but upon

. >> we heard a lot over the last few weeks about the grand versus connor factors. are you familiar with that? >> i am. >> can you provide your definition and how you look at those factors? >> so in my 35 years of teaching, it's not just dealing with tactics but it's dealing with providing the officer a mind-set of what they need to justify to use those tactics they were trained in, and the standard of grand versus connor is what would a reasonable officer have done in a similar set of circumstances that you are doing. >> now the grand versus connor factor, the first is the severity of the crime at issue, correct? >> yes. >> how do you analyze that factor? >> i know in my experience and the experiences of officers that i have been in contact with is that the higher risk in arrests, like an armed bank robber, and in a bank robbery you would pull your gun and take them to the ground and you know their threat level right off the bat. whereas i can't imagine how many times i have been exposed to personally or seen other officers dealing with a simple thing as a traffic

. >> you discussed a case the connor factors, i'd like you to first of all, is the policy referenced that you mentioned. >> yes. >> display to 17 page two. we have three bullet points here under the connor factors, the officers are supposed to look at the totality of the circumstances, right? >> yes. >> the three bullets here that the officer is supposed to consider our watch? >> the officer should consider the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others and whether he is actively resisting arrest for attempting arrest by flight. >> these three different considerations are things you can attribute to the subject, correct? >> yes. >> the subjects conduct, not someone else's. >> yes. >> and it has to be judged like a reasonable police officer on scene at the time, correct? >> yes. >> do you recall, and obviously you're here talking about what happened may 25, 2020 involving george floyd, do you recall why the officers responding to cut food that day? the original reason for the call? >> the original reason for th

connor announcement. those are three that are kind of listed but ultimately it isn't an all-inclusive list of considerations for the reasonableness of the sub source. >> that is 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 reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 2020 vision of hindsight. >> yes. >> so, we are looking at it in the instant and moment based upon the objective standard, right? >> yes. >> the policy also includes that the calculus and>> the reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that the police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments and circumstances that are uncertainar and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. >> that's because when officers noted the situation kind of like what we talked about before, what can be initially very minor can grow into something major, agreed? >> yes. >> you read a part of 5-3

it integrates graham versus connor in a different manner to national and best practices standards. that's important testimony that is central to the case. >> is your plan to show yet again the video? >> certain segments that are already in evidence. these are very limited in duration. i am not having him play to the entire video and comment on each and everything. in the same manner in which he analyzes and reviews cases the threat posed by mr. floyd he would talk about specific segments of the video he thought were keys to his analysis and we highlight certain portions not just chronological order but in an orderly fashion i expect the testimony on - - testimony on direct will last more than 90 minutes. and then central to his report that the crowds distracted the defendant he was unable to render aid and perform his normal duties as a law enforcement officer. it's important to that issue as well and that has been raised and suggested by the defense throughout this trial. >> . >> the first concern was clear motion eliminate were not going to call every cop and say what would you d

. >> now you discussed a case, connor, the connor factors, and i'd like you to -- first of all, is thedoes it reference the connor factors that you mentioned? >> yes. >> if i could display 217, page two. we have three bullet points here under the connor factors. and that is the officer is supposed to look at the totality of the circumstances, right? >> yes. >> and the three bullets here that the officer is supposed to consider are what? >> the officer should consider the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. >> fair to say these three different considerations are things that you can attribute to the subject, correct? >> yes. >> that's the subject's conduct. not someone else's. >> yes. >> of course it has to be judged by a reasonable police officer on a scene at the time, correct? >> yes. >> now do you recall -- obviously you're here talking about what happened on may 25, 2020, involving george floyd. do you recall why the

and to understand graham v connor, you have to kind of understand what we mean by threat. first, when we are talking about the threat that an individual may present, it's not some abstract notion. it's not the general threat or consensual, it is specific. the threat of something. >> somebody that is running away and they present a threat of escape or a threat of assaulting an officer or the like. and further, we can define the threat and know the threat exists when the individual has the physical ability and the opportunity and apparent intention to cause whatever specific harm we are analyzing. so, for example imagine someone who's just standing there with nothing in their hands. they don't have the physical ability to hit an officer with a tire are in. so there is a threat to be hit with a tire iron, there is no ability of a threat. imagine somebody that does have a tire iron but they are 50 feet away. they have the physical ability because they have the tire iron but they don't have an opportunity. they are too far away in the moment to actually present a threat. and th

. >> you can thank my editor, connor is the guy who thought my original title sounded too boring. this came from a phrase in my book proposal where i called him an american heretic. at a couple levels, as a title, first of all it gets at the idea that even in his own day some people saw calhoun as a heretical figure. in some ways even though i am arguing we need to reinsert into the center of american history i also want to acknowledge there were people who saw him as heretical, constitutional theories like nullification which was seen by a lot of his contemporaries as a dangerous. it would lead to disunion and also, about slavery, those were seen to some extent by the mainstream at the time. one of my arguments is calhoun is ahead of his time, by 1860 those ideas are mainstream but the other reason i like the title is i think it gets at something i mentioned earlier which is calhoun's role in modern american identity which we take his name off buildings and take down statues to him because we don't want to identify ourselves with him and his views today. i think that is appropria

. >> for the murders of his wife, lacy and their unborn son, connor.t because the california state supreme court overturned his death sentence finding that the original trial judge made mistakes during jury selection. a new jury will decide if he deserves the ultimate punishment, the same higher court also ruled that a woman selected for the original jury richelle. nice failed to disclose a restraining order. she taken out while pregnant herself. so now first, san mateo county judge has to decide if that merits peterson a whole new trial. the defense team is now investigating a second allegation involving the same germ that there was a domestic violence attack on her that we were not aware of. but in-person questioning has been stalled because of covid-19, which is why the defense has asked for and was granted a 3rd extension nice has previously denied keeping information back to get on the jury defense attorney pat harris says he doesn't think she would have been seated. she owned up to her past that she was an alternate to begin with. >> and when she

reasonable doubt the use of force objectively and reasonable which is the standard under greyhound versus connor. and ultimately that been the object reasonable at some point. the question is when did become and we have again six or seven different opinions on that and in addition your honor, medical evidence and again as the court is aware the cause of death needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you have the testimony of doctor tobin, doctor rich and another who ultimately testified as to also doctor lindsay thomas, this for doctors ultimately concluded it that it was a fictional death however, likewise they presented doctor baker's testimony which was in large part while he declared in a homicide for medical purposes, which is not a statement of criminal obligations, or criminal standard. but doctor baker suggested something much different which was the mr. floyd heart simply could not handle the stress. of the circumstances. so your honor, the state has essentially introduced doubt in the context of providing multiple experts all of which seem to contradict each other. after that re

was objectively reasonable under the circumstances and so, you know, it integratean graham versus connorut goes about it in a different manner and speaks to national and best practices standards. it is important testimony and aa testimony that essential to the case. >> is your plan to show, yet again, the videos? >> certain segments of videos that are already in evidence is demonstrative and these are very limited in duration, your honor. i'm not counting them play through an entire video and comment on each and every thing. what he will be doing is in the same manner in which he analyzes and reviews cases so the threat, for example, or lack thereof posed by mr. floyd would be talking about specific segments of the video that he thought were key to his analysis for that and we would select those in their 52nd clips or 82nd clips and not an extended play. then going to the next portion of the analysis and also commenting on whether or not the bystanders would have would have had an effect on a reasonable officer, we would highlightos through portions of those and not necessarily chronolog

>> yes. >> in the connor world, that would justify lesser force, is that right? >> yes. >> a second factor is whether the person would pose an immediate threat, is that correct? >> yes. >> can you describe this, it's right? >> something what an officer feels the person is going to assault them or someone else. >> identifying level of debt, is subjective, how is viewed? >> it could be subjective. >> how so? >> depending on the officer, their training and experience. >> we talk about this, distinguish between a threat and a risk. is there a difference between threat and risk? >> yes. >> explained that difference. >> police officers go into a situation, there is a risk factor just based on policing. i describe it as if you're going into a movie, you don't know what's going on and you try to figure out information as you are going through, as far as a threat is concerned, threat would be once someone is combative toward another person. >> what kind of factors can present a risk? >> location, the call itself, call for service, while the actual crime was. >> what about

this year, but before we get to that, the most memorable shot of today's third round this is corey connors on the par 36 hole, and you can't beam or online than this is the ball rolls in one hole in one part of a four under par round of 68 for connor's, which has him five stroke. off the lead, but this was a rainy day in georgia. thank you, brooke benton, and the round was delayed for more than an hour. my dreams wet and slower when play resumed standards softly putting for eagle 15. shockley had his share of the lead. at that point, he finished with a 68 and is tied with three other players. four strokes back here is one of them after an opening round 65 justin rose has gone 70 to 72 rows for birdie on number. 12 rose balanced teams. three birdies with three bogie too much, but the story of today's third round was written by a decade matsuyama matsuyama was some late round heroics eagle on 15 and then a birdie at 17. matsuyama had four birdies and an eagle on the back nine on the way to a seven under par. 65 has a four stroke lead headed to tomorrow's fine around trying to be the first pl

connor and more to the professional standard than just gram v.nclude that the analysis of an officer's use of force viewed from the totality of the circumstances? >> as viewed through the lens of a reasonable officer. >> it is not just 14 ten-second clips but the totality of the circumstances viewed through that lens. agreed? >> yes. >> and in fact, one of the standards that gram versus connor establishes is that shouldn't be viewed from the 20/20 lens of hindsight, right? >> it is an admonition to not rely on evidence that was available to the officers at the scene and doesn't mean we can't evaluate a use of force after the fact. >> understood. but the information is the information that was available to the officer on scene at the time based on the reasonable officer standard. right? >> not exactly. it is the information that was vanl to a reasonable officer at the time. not a subjective of the information that the individual officer had. >> understood. so we look at it from a broader lens than just the officer that was actually on scene. agree

host: this is connor in seattle. connor, what did you hear in the speech that you liked or didn't? caller: i thought it was a great speech in that he announced stuff bigger than the new deal. it was like one of the greatest announcements of projects to go and keep america going in history. host: what about the cost? $1.8 trillion, $1.9 trillion, what do think about that? caller: the cost wasn't an issue when they cut taxes for the rich, so it shouldn't be an issue now. poor people are doing worse than ever, so they can afford to do programs to help people do better. host: how was the last year during the pandemic for you? caller: it was not very good. i am doing graduate school at the university of washington. could not go to classes. just staying inside a lot. and it was because of the stimulus and i got an extra education grant that biden passed that helped me keep going. i got a $1000 check for being a student. host: what are you studying? caller: i am studying public policy. host: kim in indianapolis, what did you hear tonight you liked or didn't? caller: i thought the speech w

i see could be coming back i do i don't know when but i do it i mean obviously could be wrong but connor is an interesting thing because you know that the whiskey aside he's a guy who just like tyson it didn't matter if tyson one of the last huge are showing up to watch tyson fight with guard let's. think of the way the u.f.c. is i think mcgregor's got a bit of that still now i don't know how long it'll last i don't know how it's going to affect his is this is that or you know the whiskey business for instance but. i don't think it will ever seek a beat fight connor that's what i do yeah i don't want to see that because listen i was at the cowboy fight one can light up a 20000 seat room and a 2nd but when you're in with the smother you know what when he goes out eastern bloc with that hat come in and your thing again this cat is like a malevolent octopi he gets on me we're not getting up we're going to rub my face on the chain length for $0.15 like it should begin with and you get. yeah and look you know to qantas credit i'm good friends with chaplin he just didn't we just put him in a m

. >> you discussed a case the connor factors, i'd like you to first of all, is the policy referenced that you mentioned. >> yes. >> display to 17 page two. we have three bullet points here under the connor factors, the officers are supposed to look at the totality of the circumstances, right? >> yes. >> the three bullets here that the officer is supposed to consider our watch? >> the officer should consider the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others and whether he is actively resisting arrest for attempting arrest by flight. >> these three different considerations are things you can attribute to the subject, correct? >> yes. >> the subjects conduct, not someone else's. >> yes. >> and it has to be judged like a reasonable police officer on scene at the time, correct? >> yes. >> do you recall, and obviously you're here talking about what happened may 25, 2020 involving george floyd, do you recall why the officers responding to cut food that day? the original reason for the call? >> the original reason for th

accomplice liability was going to be included to each potential charge, then to the graham versus connorhe purposes in understanding instructions i should say, the court is going to put that back in it should be in a single place and then it should be removed from the definition. so there's that whole discussion of how many times, where is it going to be. so yes if the court is going to put it in it should be in a single. >> similar to how the court has dealt with of the other definitions on the defenses. >> the last thing that i noted, the state made a request relative to the jury asking the court to include the standard jury instruction relevant to the jury not being considerate of punishment. the court indicated, and i noted it also didn't include that language but on a later part in the instructions. i would ask that it simply be included once at the front or the back side of the construction as an appropriate instruction is it is part of the standard guide, and i would submit to the court it should be simply included once at the risk of highlighting this. >> just for the record, lon

>> i believe that's graham versus connor, sir. >> that is encapsulated or incorporated into the minneapolis police department policy on the use of force, correct? >> correct. >> because situations are rapidly evolving, correct? >> that's correct. >> and sometimes, just because an incident is ten minutes long or 20 minutes long, that doesn't mean that it can't instantaneously change? >> that's correct. >> what may not be a threat one second can be a threat next? >> correct. >> have you ever been trained or trained others to say that if a person can talk they can breathe? >> it's been said, yes. >> in terms of the continuation of the use of force, or excuse me, not the continuation. the graphic that we looked at in exhibit 110. if we could just publish exhibit 110, your honor. this is the defense control and response training guide. correct? >> that's correct. >> simply because a person is not actively resisting, right, that doesn't mean you can't use some degree of force. correct? >> that's correct. >> if a person is passively resisting, you can still use certain types of force. right? >> ye

nothing was going to stop corey connors. for under on the day highlighted by the sixth place. he had a hole-in-one and just became the sixth player to ace hole number six. jordan spieth is in the hunt in seventh place at five under par . up and down on the chip for brody but the man everybody is chasing is marciano. 65 and he is the leader up by four and in the clubhouse at 11 underpar. we have kevin durant a nagging hamstring injury. they were talking about a dispute on the bench from a few years ago. that was the beginning of the end as katie for a warrior. stay tuned for that coming up at 8:00. >> thank you. >>> that is all the time we have for this early addition. we will see you back here at 11:00. up next, countdown to the lakers and nets. have a great afternoon, we will people are always finding ways to save money. i learned to cut hair. fortunately, xfinity makes saving easy. and way less awkward... because when you have xfinity internet and add mobile, you can save up to 300 dollars a year on wireless. two great products. one great value. saving made easy. can your in

i also mentioned connor lamb. the report helps us focus the scope of bipartisan infrastructure. what -- there are three legs how to focus to start the agreement down. then we will have to look at two other pieces. what should it cost and how do we pay for it. it will be an ongoing conversation but the first portion of the scope which was such a big part of the discussion is so critical. the caucus will in the weeks and days ahead work around the clock to get a bipartisan deal done on this infrastructure package. it can be done and as joe said it must. the survival of our country depends on bipartisan solutions and governing. i know with everyone working together as we have been our best days will be ahead. i'm so honored to introduce the co-chair of the caucus brian fitzpatrick my good friend from pennsylvania. >> governor hogan on behalf of everybody should know that the government -- the governor is amazing. josh mentioned the democrat members. on the gop side. as a jealous -- josh has stated, we are taking a very structured approach. number one is infrastructure. number two i

right, graham versus connor and also? >> yes. >> those are three that a kind of listed, but ultimately is not an all inclusive list of considerations for the reasonableness of the use of force, agreed? >> that was my understanding. >> and, in fact, what the policy reads is that the reasonableness of the particular use the force must be judged from the perspective of the reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 2020 vision of hindsight, right? >> guess. >> so we're looking at in the instant and the monk based upon the objective standard, right? >> yes. >> also, 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 any particular situation, right? >> yes. >> that's because when officers go to situation kind of what we talked about before, what can be initially very minor can grow into somethi

un placer seguir el legado de cÉsar chÁvez vacunado a mÁs de 1000 trabajadores del campo, y es un connoreadores. reportero: ahÍ tiene la vacunaciÓn de los campesinos trabajadores de primera lÍnea, o de encontrar mÁs informaciÓn sobre la vacunaciÓn del covid 19 en el condado de lara en el sitio web que compartimos en pantalla. o tambiÉn puede llamar al 211. paola: y ver cÓmo justamente la primera dama jill biden visitÓ hoy el condado en la sede principal... hizo a las referencias a las a las palabras del papa francisco quien dijo que las personas tienen la obligaciÓn moral de vacunarse. y en mÁs detalles sobre la distribuciÓn de vacunas en nuestra regiÓn, la encuentra descargandonuestra aplicaciÓn de noticias univisiÓn Área de la bahÍa. funcionarios de la ciudad de san josÉ aprobaron hoy plana para prevenir mÁs espectÁculos de autos ilegales. reportera: el programa al fresco en san josÉ se extiende hasta final del aÑo, paola: continuamos, el programa de lacio de tango de que ha permitido que los restaurantes y pequeÑas empresas operen al aire libre durante las restricciones del covid 19 t

she walked in the room and said, ok, now let's get justice for that little baby connor.fore she ever the liberated before she ever did anything, which i think indicates a mindset that could very well be based on her own experience. >> the next hearing is set for late june. the judge wants the matter of whether or not peterson is granted an entire new trial wrapped up by the end of the year. >> time now is a 42. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ deposit, plan and pay with easy tools from chase. simplicity feels good. chase. make more of what's yours. >> 45 looking good. so far it does weather wise. we've got nice sunny skies out there. hardly a breeze, john in the weather center keeping an eye on that. good morning, john. hey, guys. yeah, hardly even a breeze out there which is just the cherry on top to. >> all the sunshine in the pretty mild weather that just 08:45am now we're already timber on right now looking at absolutely beautiful conditions. we're going to see more this sunshine through the day. so not to worry. it's not going anywhere. daytime highs going to make i

she walked in the room and said, ok, now let's get justice for that little baby connor.er the liberated before she ever did anything, which i think indicates a mindset that could very well be based on her own experience. >> connor was lacey and peterson's unborn who he killed along with lacy. again, it's just the sentencing that is in question for this. he's been convicted. the next hearing is set for late june. the judge wants the matter of whether or not peterson is granted entire new trial wrapped up by the end of the year. james. >> we'll take a break here at 7.51 coming up next, the warriors got kind of stuck in a rut couldn't score a point for nearly 10 minutes and show you what happened and hear from coach kerr coming up after the break. >> 7.54 it wasn't just a loss. it wasn't a bear. a son was for the warriors because they suffer the worst scoring drought in a decade. in their play against the mavericks. the game was at the chase center in after scoring 12 points in the 1st half the warriors. when 9 minutes and 38 seconds without basic making a basket. nothing.