Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

[RVInit]

The eye rolling by the third witness is also not super impressive. Her demeanor is bordering on uncooperative. I don't think that's a good look.

[RVInit]

So, an officer that testified that the crowd was threatening is on the stand. He is a fifth officer that came to assist when he heard the radio calls.

So far nothing on his body camera is showing any passerby making any threatening moves or statements at the officers. He admits that He never came over to assist the other officers, the people who are in the car with Floyd do everything the police tell them to do. Floyd is sitting on the ground. He admits that Kane told him the four officers did not need his help with anything, that he should basically watch traffic. I'm not seeing anything dangerous to the officers yet.

The only thing the "threatening people" are doing is asking what is going on across the street. "What is he doing"? One person asked that question one time. That's it. Other than that they are answering the officer's questions and following his orders. They clearly don't really want to stick around, they say they didn't do anything, but they are not fighting, screaming, threatening, or failing to follow all of his instructions. The worse they are doing is making it clear they would rather leave.

[RVInit]

The officer is asking the two passengers if they can hear Floyd yelling. You can't actually hear it on his body camera, not hearing Floyd yelling from this officers camera. The passengers did not agree that they heard him yelling.

We are quite a bit into this officer's body camera and I have not yet seen anyone displaying the threatening behavior he testified to. I think he's going to have a difficult cross examination. We are at the point where EMS has been called.

One of the passengers asked "did they hurt him"/ And the officer says he hurt himself. His body camera never pointed in Floyd's direction and never showed what was happening with Floyd.

The female passgenger is yelling to the other people across the street "Why is he going to the hospital". That didn't sound like a threat to me. It was a question.

[RVInit]

EMS has arrived at this point and so far not a single threat appeared to happen anywhere near this officer, who claimed it was a threatening situation to the officers. But he didn't need to help them.

Ok, the crowd is getting more animated now that Floyd has been put into the ambulance and taken away. But they did nothing but comply. They didn't get upset until it was apparently that Floyd was in some kind of emergency. And given what they just witnessed I think this officer is a serious fraidy cat and likely shouldn't be on the force if he thought he or any other officer was in any danger during any of that activity. And, his body camera seems to show he didn't even know what any of the other officers may have been experiencing.

[RVInit]

So, now he crosses the street leaving the supposedly threatening people completely "unsupervised". Seems legit.

[RVInit]

Here comes cross examination. It might be brutal.

[RVInit]

Interesting first question. The prosecutor asked if this officer said to another officer "Still red"? And then asked him if he was asking if that officer still had his body camera turned on.

If you "self assign" to help police, you won't get into trouble for that? Yes. You referred to them as your partners and were listening to the same radio traffic" Yes. With this particular call you heard a request for backup? And you decided to go lights and sirens? Yes, Yes. At some point you turned if off before you arrived (no sirens, lights) Yes.

You heard code 4 before you arrived? Yes. What does that mean? The scene is safe.

Mr Floyd is sitting against the wall. Doesn't appear threatening, or agitated? True. When that happened you never heard officers call for a Code Three? Correct, did not call for a code three. You heard later a code three on the ambulance. You are trained to assess the situation? Yes. You heard King asked Floyd for his name, and Floyd gave his name and date of birth. You ra it through your system. Yes yes.

You observed as Lane and King walked Floyd over. You moved your squad care to help them, but as soon as you got out they told you they didn't need you here, to go back across the street.

Now he's admitting he couldn't see what was going on, but he's kind of stammering, trying to make light of that fact that he couldn't see anything. As I suspected from direct exam.

You indicated they were getting louder and more aggressive, you knew four officer were there, and they said they were fine, you would have heard them radio for help had they done so.

End of cross. Mincemeat pretty much.

[Patagoniagirl]

Just wow. We cant see the jurors, but I wonder if they are feeling like many of us do here. Slim and I were BOTG at a trial a few years ago. And I completely misread the jury. Completely. I thought they would acquit based upon their demeanor. They convicted.

I am so emotionally involved in this trial because I saw it for 9 minutes. So I have no idea, but this does not look good for Chauvin.

[Uninformed]

If only Floyd had run away they could have (accidentally) justifiably shot him. Could this be classified as obstructing a police officer?

[Patagoniagirl]

If only Floyd had run away they could have (accidentally) justifiably shot him. Could this be classified as obstructing a police officer?

Tazed?

[RVInit]

Lunch break just started.

[Patagoniagirl]

Thank.you RV for your fine commentary and overviews!

[Kendra]

Thank.you RV for your fine commentary and overviews!

Ditto

[sugar magnolia]

Lots of stuff wrong with Chang's testimony from the perspective of actual police academy training, regardless of what he could or couldn't see from his vantage point. Right off the bat it set my teeth on edge that he was going code 3 (10-18 here) as a simple "self-assigned" back up. You put a lot of people in danger by hauling ass through town with no good reason. Lights and sirens with little or no other traffic is just begging for trouble, and he went through at least 2 red lights but apparently never touched his brakes, based on the moving scenery outside his unit from the body cam. Yeah, bullshit driving in a marked unit is one of my pet peeves.

Meandering around with his back to, at some points the subjects from the vehicle, at others, the other officers on scene. And it did not look to me like he was swiveling for officer safety considerations. He was just wandering around between the 2 scenes. If he had heard an "aggressive crowd" and was anything other than a chickenshit, his positioning of the subjects and himself would have been much different. I hesitate to even throw this out here because it may not be the case in Minneapolis, but every dept I've ever worked for has a shaky, at best, relationship with officers from other agencies (or pseudo-agencies, in many cases) so it doesn't surprise me they put him over there watching the car.He isn't "one of them" so wouldn't be trusted to get in the middle of things unless all hell broke loose.

All in all, not a very impressive witness to me, but I missed the prosecution's cross of him.

The EMT who is back on the stand didn't really seem to have much to add and I don't believe she ever did say George Floyd was exhibiting signs of excited delerium so I'm not sure what the point of recalling her was. Her testimony didn't seem to help but it didn't seem to hurt either.

All opinions based on the parts I saw of the last 2 witnesses testifying and all of the first 3. It will be interesting to see what Nelson comes up with in the way of medical experts.

[filly]

Somewhat off topic but I will cross-post:

[RVInit]

[RVInit]

Defense Use of force Expert. He's self employed expert in use of force situations. Will be interesting if he has ever testified for the prosecution. I will let you know if it comes up. Special assignments with Park Police in defensive tactics

He taught defensive tactics at Santa Rosa public safeity Center. California. I wondered if it was Florida, Santa Rosa is also a northern Florida county.

Verbal judo - one area he trained in. Better tools to communicate with people. That's rich considering this case is all about how the police escalated every single chance they got. He taught until retired and then another 9 years. Several certifications. Post Basic, Intermediate, Advanced, certified by FBI as defensive tactics instructor. The nature of his private practice - he takes cases from plaintiff and defense. 140 cases actively involved in. Testified since 2016 10 times. Other types of hearings he also testified, depositions, etc.

Illinois, California, Hawaii, and Minneapolis. Spent 60 hours on this case. 11,400 paid so far in this case. How became involved in this case? He reached out to City Attorney's office and said he had some exposure to George Floyd and was not retained by them. Then, he was retained by defense. Scope of engagement - Analyze the actions of Derek Chauvin and give opinions at to his actions regarding George Floyd. He has learned he does not need to review policy. Not sure what he means by that, because then he contradicted that statement. Based on training, expertise, on the use of force have you formed an opinion. Felt that Chauvin was justified, followed policy in his interactions with George Floyd. It's not just dealing with tactics, but also mindset. (he never mentioned interviewing Chauvin). I bet prosecutor will pick up on that.

Now talking about minor offenses and saying they end up in fight of their life. Eyeroll from me, here. Imminent threat factor. From police officer point of view you don't have to wait for it to happen, you just have to have a fear that it will happen. If subject is actively resisting, justifies use of force. Example is of someone punching officer when they try to handcuff them, which didn't happen here. Oher relevant factors - try to see it through the eyes of officers on the scene. What was suspect doing, onlookers, etc. All the crap Nelson has been spewing from day one of the trial. Objective reasonableness. It's easy to sit and judge in an office about officer's conduct. Does that prohibit review of conduct. No. Methodology he uses in analyzing factors in previous cases (interesting) - did officer have legal authority to detain. You don't haev right to resist. Anything taht evolves from lawful detention the officer has "certain rights". Not sure what that means. Reasonable suspicion to detain is considered.

You see an infraction, misdemeanor, or felony. Probably cause to arrest - the person probably committed the crime. Putting someone in handcuffs is not necessarily arrest, could be detention.

How does suspect respond. If suspect complies that's good. If doesn't comply and begin to resist, what level of resistance, and what did officer do to meet that resistanceAc

Active resistance or passive, not taking any physical measure to resist. Active aggression - i.e. suspect akes a swing at officer, he's allowed to escalate. Use of Force differ slightly from state to state. but deadly force is fairly consistent. Poor officers have learning curve because things are changing. Excessive would be if person resists and officer pulls out baton and strikes them in the head.

This was not a use of deadly force in his opinion. Example. Suspect accidentally falls to the ground and hits his head and dies as a result of tazing, not officer's fault. Control is when officer puts his hands on person, pain compliance techniques. If you don't do what they ask, should stimulate with pain. (There was testimony and clear photos and video of Chauvin applying pain techniques.

Are they supposed to de-escalate. yes. Always in response to what suspect is doing. What influence does possible drug use have. Quite a bit - they may not hear or understand, may have erratic behavior - they don't feel pain, have superhuman strength. May go from compliance to non compliance in a heartbeat.

Never remove handcuffs from a person suspected of being on drugs. He trains that they stay handcuffed until taken to hospital if needed.

[RVInit]

Officer's head needs to be on a swivel to see evrything that's going on. But Chauvin doesn't ever do that, I think that is problematic. Situational awareness comes into analysis. Environmental hazards, traffic. onlookers.

Officer has to take in account what they see on the scene. Information may be inaccurate, false, etc, up to officer to make determination of what is going on.

His opinion is that Chauvin did not use excessive force. First use of force - when he joined Lane and King in puting Floyd in back of car. Floyd's level of resistance allowed the officers to do what they were doing and could have taken higher level of force justifiably.

If officer uses less force than justified that is de-escalation (I think that was the point). He watched the body cam videos, surveillance, and bystander videos. What are limitation of cameras/ Shows what camera is pointing at. Doesn't show what is feeling or sensing, Low light makes cameras not respond as quickly. He feels objectively reasonable use of force

He does not consider prone restraint to be a use of force. Placing him on the ground was objectively reasonable. It was only use of force up to the point where they put him on the ground. He says Floyd was still struggling. Floyd appeared to kick. Why take suspect to the ground - it's safer for you with a high risk suspect to put them prone on the ground. It diminishes their mobility, can't grab officer, limits what they can do with their feet. In this case does it make a difference that Floyd was handcuffed. No - he should have been put into prone control position. Handcuffs behind the back. Placed on their stomach, and put body weight on suspect is exactly what they should have done.

(This man is sick)

[sterngard friegen]

Effective cross-examination of the defense's first use of force expert will be crucial. Who will get the job? I hope it's Jerry Blackwell who seems to be the most able prosecutor.

[RVInit]

They were justified in maximum restraint, but chose not to. So, they didn't hobble him. (How nice of them!)

The fact that EMS was summoned means EMS could do a better job that police can do, so they didn't have to help Floyd. (laughable)

Safer for officer and suspect to keep him the way they kept him prone on the ground. It could have killed him if he had vomitted and he was on his side or back. Foggy, where is the eyeroll emoji?

He was always trained that if someone is saying they can't breath, as long as they are talking they can breathe.

Prone position is not use of force because "it doesn't hurt".

The dangers of positional asphyxia only happens to an obese person.

Recovery position is done out of concerns of positional asphyxiation - why wouldn't you do that? In this case there were space limitations, crowd issues taking attention of officers, Floyd somewhat resisting all valid reasons to keep him prone.

OMG. Thank goodness this fuckwad is no longer an active duty police officer. But the fact that he trains really troubles me. I'm guessing he may only get gigs in Texas and Florida after this testimony.

[RVInit]

Bad things "could " have happened so police officers could do anything they wanted.

[RVInit]

Summary - Chauvin's actions followed training, current practices, and were objectively reasonable.

Cross coming up in five minutes.

[RVInit]

I think some of the issues with his testimony revolve around what I've already said. He really mostly argued that Floyd's suspected drug use made this use of force perfectly OK.

Does anyone remember if Chauvin ever told EMS that he thought Floyd was on drugs? I don't recall him doing that. And he never asked "what did you take" after he asked Floyd if he was on drugs". Not 100% sure about this one.

[sugar magnolia]

They have either changed things completely since the last academy I went through, or this guy is a raving fucking lunatic. Probable cause DOES NOT mean "he probably did it", and the prone position with 3 officers sitting on you is absolutely use of force. Pretty much the textbook definition of use of force is, like, putting your hands on the suspect! If you are restraining the suspect in any way, it is a use of force. If you are forcing them to do something they wouldn't be doing on their own, that is, literally, use of force. Handcuffs is a use of force you nitwit.

He has no grasp on the difference between risk and thread and seems to be using them interchangeably. Two different things, two different responses to real or perceived risk or threat. I hope he didn't confuse the jury by doing that.

Our local academy quit teaching verbal judo back in the 90s. It was a silly class to begin with and we could never tell that it was actually useful on the street. Another one of those "it looks good on paper" things.

I can't believe things have changed that much, that prone position until death is no longer considered use of force. I actually missed some of testimony from a combination of hollering at my husband when the expert said something stupid, and just an inability to actually listen to some of the shit he was spouting.

It's probably a good thing I missed the part where he gave his credentials or I would have been too busy hollering to listen to anything.

[RVInit]

Cross - your fundamental proposition is that prone position is not a use of force because it's not likely to inflict pain.

If it did inflict pain would that change your opinion? If Floyd experienced pain would that be use of force? yes

Prone involved on stomach, face down, on pavement. yes yes yes. "Prone control" or "restraint" - At some point defendant is on top of him? Witness says he doesn't think he's on top of him. Looking at photo of defendant with knee on top of Floyd - he's claiming it's on his back. It's clearly on his neck. Admits he's on top now.

His knee is on top of Floyd. You can't see his knee in this photo, but you've seen the body camera video, you are aware both right and next knee are on top of Floyd. Witness claims it's on his arm. Lordy, there are tapes, idiot.

Now admits Chauvin has both knees on top of Mr Floyd. He's 140 lbs and also the equipment he's wearing could exert extra force or weight on Mr Floyd. Yes

Do you believe it's unlikely that orienting yourself in this position is unlikely to produce pain. He says it "could" produce pain. Based on your definition then it's a use of force. If his intent is to inflict pain then it's a use of force.