back to another police force and get hired when she's unfit to be a police officer anywhere around the nation. >> i do appreciate that. i have not accepted her resignation. so you know -- >> reporter: [ inaudible ]? >> i don't know. like i said, we are doing our internal process to make sure we are being accountable to the steps we need to take. >> does she still want to resign? >> okay. no, that is not something i can share. >> can you talk about the demographics -- [ inaudible ]. >> what about prosecution?

>> [ inaudible ] and when i listened, she [ inaudible ], she did not apologize at all. that's a problem with accepting her resignation, she did not apologize. she needs to apologize and i think she needs to be fired. >> mayor, we ask that charges be pressed. we know that she has ties to police unions as well and we are calling on the governor to call on the attorney general to bring charges just as they did for the other officer that accidentally shot a civilian. >> immediately, if you want peace on the streets we need to

see justice. >> absolutely. this case needs to be given to -- appointed to the attorney general, so i am calling on the governor to exercise his authority and to move this case from washington county to -- under the jurisdiction of the attorney general. [ applause ] >> [ inaudible ]? >> i'm sorry? >> are you saying you won't accept her resignation? >> not necessarily. in cases like this when there's a police-involved shooting, and in our case it would be go to the hennepin county attorney, mike freeman, and i believe he has declined and so instead it's

going to washington county. but we understand that the sensitivity revolving around this case and the level of -- how do i say this. in this case it requires that the attorney general steps in and prosecutes this case. >> mr. mayor? >> yes. >> [ inaudible ] our focus is what we are realizing is the communications and the war it has created and [ inaudible ],

and what are you going to do [ inaudible ]? what are you going to do? >> sure. on the short term we will continue some of the practices we have had, the multicultural advisory committee, and the jccp, and with some of the challenges with covid we are not able to meet face-to-face with people and have the one-on-one dialogue and that interaction, and that's some of what is lacking, and it's easier to interact with them and relate when you have a meeting with them in person. i think that's -- the disconnect with covid and working from home, there's a problem, and i am committed to working with the

community, community outreach and trying to engage with them, whether that be community meetings and community dialogue, and community meetings in the park, and we want to reach out and will continue to do that, and at times we offer food so we can engage with our citizens and interact and get to know them better. there's a history there, but we will continue to try and cultivate that relationship. [ inaudible ] >> a lot of that sounds outwardly focused -- >> yeah, i am not prepared -- this is very short notice. >> that's okay. i think you got it. it sounds to me like you were involved in the community engagement, and in the community, you are going to see us a lot. i believe you should be the

person to answer these, and a lot of that sounds awkwardly bogus in terms of the community meeting there, and bringing food there and community outreach there, and that's fine, and it's critical for us as a community, and one of the questions i asked the chief yesterday whether or not he was aware that there was a pretty extensive backlog in terms of the registration tab of [ inaudible ], and there's a backlog of two or three months, and he said he was aware of that, and even in the event of a covid crisis, and i said you are okay having no such contact and the cameras are on back order

for two or three months, and these are the kinds of things and if these types of internal policies, and the deputy chief and to the officers under him in terms of enforcement practices, what they will look like, and we believe our brother was racially profiled, and that's one of the things used and abused, and so we have a major problem at that level of petty enforcement that can lead to such tragic and horrendous consequences. my question is, what do you plan to do in regarding and looking at the review of the internal policies, practices and procedures of the department? what is your plan for looking inwardly opposed to outwardly looking? what is the plan for your staff

and to have dialogue with, and what is your plan inward with the staff now? >> i don't have a plan. i will work on a plan. i can talk to the community members and see where they would like the direction they would like it to go, but i was appointed chief an hour ago. i don't have the comprehensive strategy to look externally, interpblly, and we want to do the things the community members would like to see us do, and we want to work with our community members, and if that means creating an engagement group to discuss it with, we can do that. i don't have a comprehensive plan to look at externally and

internally at this point. >> i am saying because i am a black man, that young man was pulled over. they did not see his tags, and he got pulled over because he was black behind the car. those tags were just an entryway into the car. you didn't hit your blinker, or your brake lights don't work. when i watch that video on the screen, it reminded me when the white car, it reminded me -- what eli is saying, what can you do going forward to make sure that this racial profiling -- right now people better not be driving through here after sundown.

are your tags expired? mine are. i think as a chief, i think it's imperative that you talk to the officers. some things don't need to be enforced. are you going to pull me over for not wearing a mask? because what happened yesterday, it's like putting morphine in the iv. you can't make those types of mistakes, and if this kid was not racially profiled -- i have seen police reports come out of this department and we made eye contact and he looked shifty so i made a u-turn, and it was because of his dreadlocks, and he fits the description. you fit the description. you fit the description. i fit the description. you look the description of some

of the calls that come over the radios. we failed george floyd, and we failed daunte, and i don't want to fail anybody else this summer. [ inaudible ], like you said, by the way, congratulations. i wish you would be more in tune and take the uniform off and play hoop with the kids, officer, and jump in the swimming pool and show them something other than law and order around here, and stop racially profiling. >> thank you. [ inaudible ] >> one at a time, please. one at a time. one at a time.

excuse me. >> come on, chief. >> i can't comment on that. sorry. >> the young man had weapons drawn, and what threat did he pose to anybody? >> i really do appreciate the question. here's the deal. it's your job to ask questions and i know that, but they cannot answer that question because the bca has this investigation now, and it's theirs to look at, and they are going to review all the tape and facts and everybody involved and then they are going to make their recommendations to the prosecutor, the prosecuting

attorney, and then the attorneys are going to make their charging decision as to whether or not, you know -- they are going to make their decisions on the facts. >> what threat did that young man pose to anybody? >> i can't answer the question. i can't answer hypotheticals. sorry. >> it's not a hypothetical. >> he was shot dead. >> let me clarify something. let me clarify something. so the acting chief and the commander do have to get back. they have another meeting they have to tend to. >> i have another question. [ inaudible ]. as an organizer, i live here, and i have been here a long

time, and the question i have is i don't need your police officers to come and profile my family, just protect tkrbg the whole food thing and everything else, that means nothing. as a community, we have asked the city council for a long time that we needed a community to be [ inaudible ]. i want to ask if that's something you and the chief will address later? >> absolutely. we're not just going to consider it, we're going to do it. >> thank you. >> yes, sir? >> [ inaudible ].

>> [ inaudible ]. >> he can answer the questions. i understand he was just appointed an hour ago, but he agreed to it and the responsibilities that came with it, and the fact that he showed up he should have been prepared to answer the questions and not leave that up to you.

>> [ inaudible ]. >> certainly. i believe this is a personnel matter and i am limited to terms of what i can say about that, but what i can say is that the city manager, you know, as you all know, serves at the pleasure of the city council and is subject to the removal at the will of the city council. mr. bogany has served on the city council, and there are concerns how the city responded to the protests, and we do want to thank him for his service --

>> as you can see, court is resuming in the lower right-hand side of your screen, the derek chauvin trial. right now we have been listening to brooklyn center mayor, mike elliott. a lot of big news out of brooklyn center. we heard earlier the officer involved in that shooting, kim potter, a veteran of the force has resigned. we just heard a couple moments ago that the chief of police of brooklyn center has also resigned. this is following a really remarkable news conference that they had yesterday where they showed the body cam footage and where the police chief, according to guests that we had on our air, including a veteran defense attorney for hennepin county saying it was not up to the standards of what should have happened in terms of accountability from the police chief. he has now resigned. there's a new slate of people

that are now in charge of brooklyn center starting with the mayor, and the mayor is having to be in charge of a lot of things including whether or not he wants to force rez kwreug resignations or firings of the police department. to get us back to the trial, i want to go to the president of the national network, reverend al sharpton. what do you make of what we have been watching? >> the significance of what we have just seen, the resignation of police chief and the police officer, and the governor putting the attorney general in charge of the investigation, and it's the same attorney general that is the prosecutor in the case of derek chauvin. so this is where we see the cases come together, if, in fact, the attorney general is put in charge, and many feel the

strong prosecution is against derek chauvin in the case of george floyd. >> one of the other things that struck me, rev, is he was talking about how he wants the police to respond to protests, and that's what is going to happen tonight. he took away a lot of the tactics that are often used by police departments to subdue a crowd, or contain a crowd or disperse a crowd, and a lot of tasks activists have said you are making things worse by coming in and having a war against us and this is what is sparking the unrest and violence and anger between police officers and the community. what do you make of him pulling back on these dispersal tactics, like no use of gas or no use of rubber bullets, et cetera? >> i think that is very

significant, because in many ways these tactics are provoking, and it provokes and angers and increases and exacerbates the tension. when you go into the community and you comment, and they respond that way particularly when they are angry and rightfully so and i talked to the girlfriend of daunte wright today and i talked to his father. the anger there is you lose your life over expired tags on a car and then when people protests, rubber bullets and tear-gas, and you come in like it's a war zone. i think the mayor is wise to pull back. you can't ask people to heal and

then stick what they feel are weapons of war in their face. >> a remarkable set of changes and another remarkable news conference out of brooklyn center. reverend al sharpton, thank you very much. we want to get back to the derek chauvin murder trial. right now there's another expert on the stand called by the defense. his name is barry broad and he's an expert on police practices and use of force. let's listen in. >> how long did you teach there? >> 35 years. >> the use of force always? >> yes, in addition to other topics. >> what were the other topics that you trained in? >> weapons laws, and interview techniques, collision scene, tactical, verbal judo.

>> what is verbal judo? >> it is, and actually dr. george thompson developed the program shortly after the rodney king incident figuring police officers needed better tools to communicate with people. so verbal judo created an outline on how an officer who made a traffic stop could use verbal skills to overcome potential noncompliance. >> did you also teach in crowd control, crowd management type of issues? >> i did. so the topics i taught at the straining center was defensive tactics, crowd control, chemical agent, impact weapons and the other topics i discussed earlier. >> you did that for 35 years while you were still actively a peace officer? >> so i taught while i was a police officer and then when i retired in 2004 i continued teaching in the training center

for another nine years. >> all right. you have received any certifications throughout your career? >> several. i have post intermediate certificates, and i was certified by the california peace officer standards and training commission as a defensive tactics instructor, and in through california p.o.s.t. >> can you describe the nature of your private practice so to

speak in the case of use of force? >> i take cases from plaintiffs and defendants in civil cases. i do use of tpoefrs consulting for a variety of public defenders offices in california, and i was also a member of the force consulting for the district attorney's office >> you have been involved in prior cases to review the use of force? >> i have had a little over 140 cases that i have been actively involved in. >> you have provided testimony in courts throughout the united states? >> i have. >> other arbitrative type of hearings? >> yes. >> can you tell me the number of times you have testified in civil or criminal cases? >> since 2016 i testified in court either criminal or civil both state and federal ten times. >> in terms of other types of

hearings, depositions, things of that nature, you have testified there as well? >> yes. >> can you describe some of the states where you have previously testified? >> illinois. california. hawaii. that's about it. >> you have ever been hired on a case here in minnesota? >> yes. >> who hired you in that case? >> minneapolis county attorney's office. >> you are paid for your services? >> yes. >> can you tell us your hourly rate and how many hours you have spent. >> i make $350 an hour for court appearances and $275 in case reviews. >> what is the total you have earned so far? >> in this case, $11,400.

>> simply because you were being paid, does that mean you will always side with that particular party? >> no. >> in your career have you ever been retained by somebody and found their use of force to be improper? >> several times. >> how is it that you became involved in this particular case? >> when this incident first occurred i reached out to the city attorney's office here in minneapolis and told them that -- >> objection. hearsay. >> overruled. >> -- told them i had exposure to the george floyd case. >> you were not retained by the city attorney's office or state, right? >> correct. >> you were then retained by my office? >> yes.

>> when you were retained, were you provided a scope of your engagement? >> i was. you asked me to analyze the actions of derek chauvin and give opinions regarding his conduct and actions towards mr. floyd. >> can you describe the materials that you reviewed in order to analyze this case? >> so i received thousands of pages of material but i learned through my experience that i don't need to review materials that don't really have anything to do with the officer or the officers' policies or the use of force policies, so i pretty much focused my review on the videos, the snapshots and the body-worn cameras the officers were wearing and the miscellaneous statements and the use of force

policies and training. >> when you say there were materials not relevant to your analysis, can you give us a general example of what that would be? >> manner control, vehicle maintenance responsibilities, things of that nature. >> anything pertaining directly to your analysis in this case you did review? >> i did review. now based upon your training and experience and your expertise in the use of force matter, your review of the materials that have been provided to you, have you formed opinions in this particular case to a reasonable degree of professional certainty? >> i have. >> can you just briefly overview your opinions in this particular case? >> i felt that derek chauvin was justified and was acting with objective reasonableness following minneapolis police

department policy in current standards with law enforcement and his interactions with mr. floyd. >> 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 stop or a j-walking violation or some minor offense and they end up in a life for their life just because of the conduct of the individual they are contacting. >> so the severity issue is always what was the initial response, 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. >> that's -- does that go into the second gram factor? >> yeah, the imminent threat. >> can you just explain the imminent threat factor? >> so imminent is from a police officer's standpoint, you don't have to wait for it to happen. you just have to have a reasonable fear that somebody is going to strike you, stab you, shoot you. so you try to plan to deal with the imminent threat and then you adjust your tactics accordingly based upon how the suspect is reacting to you. >> and then the third gram factor is whether the suspect is actively resisting or attempting to evade, correct? >> correct. >> and can you explain that to the jury? >> the level of resistance is

commence rent, if a suspect is resisting your efforts to handcuff them and they spin away and try to punch you, the officer doesn't have to go fist on fist with them and the officer can escalate and use an impact weapon like pepper spray, taser or other tools. >> and then the analysis of gram versus connor, is there more analysis? >> as you are reviewing an incident such as this, you have to review it through the eyes of the officer on the scene, what was the suspect doing? what were the circumstances? what were onlookers doing? were there environmental hazards and try to put yourself in the officer's shoes to see if the decisions they made, were they objectively reasonable or not.

>> you would agree with the other people that testified in this case, there was objectionable reasonable -- >> there was a view from a reasonable police officer on the scene? >> yes. >> what about hindsight? >> it's easy to sit and judge in an office on an officer's conduct, and it's more of a challenge, again, to put yourself in the officer's shoes and try to make an evaluation through what they are feeling and sensing and the fear they have and then make a determination? >> does that prohibit or preclude a review of a police officer's conduct? >> not a review, no. >> when you approach a use of force case such as this, do you apply a particular methodology in order to -- in order to

analyze the graham versus conor factor? >> i do. >> can you explain to the jury the methodology you used in previous cases or in your career? >> it's a simple review. i look at when the officer contacted the individual, did the officer have legal authority for a detention. so let's talk about a traffic stop. if somebody runs a stop sign, the police officer has the right to detain you. you as the person running the stop sign do not have the right to resist the officer. anything that would evolve from a lawful detention, the officer has certain rights to continue the investigation. now a detention -- so detention, you need suspicion for, and to make an arrest you have to have cause. i need to look if the officer

had probable cause to arrest or detain. >> in terms of the lawful right to detain, you used a term. what was that determine? reasonable suspicion? >> reasonable suspicion to detain? >> what constitutes reasonable suspicion to detain? >> you witness a infraction or misdemeanor or felony and the person you are going to detain you have a reasonable suspicion they committed an infraction or another crime. >> in terms of probable cause to arrest, how would you define that? >> as the statement says, that the person probably committed the crime. officers when they make an arrest, they base it on probable cause. >> in terms of putting a suspect in handcuffs, is that automatically an arrest? >> no. >> could it be a detention?

>> it could be a detention. >> so just to make sure i understand your testimony, your first part of viewer analysis is to see if the officer had probable cause to detain the suspect. >> when the suspect complies and the officer handcuffs the suspect, that's good, but if the suspect does not comply and begin to resist, i look at what level resistance the suspect displayed to the officer and what did the officer do to overcome that resistance. >> let's talk briefly on the second prong about the different types of resistance a suspect could use. could you describe the level of resistance that you look for? >> no resistance would be

compliance. that's always the goal. the next level would be passive resistance where you tell the suspect to turn around and put their hands behind their back and they don't. they are not resisting you, they are just being physically noncompliant yet without any type of physical strength or maneuver they might do to prevent you from handcuffing them. the next level is active resistance, and i put you in a position to handcuff you and you pull away or struggle with me, and that's active resistance where they are using energy to prevent the officer from accomplishing their goal, and now if that same suspect pulls away from me and swings at me, and that's active aggression and all of those cues allowed me to go up the ladder to those

options i have. >> do use of force policies differ from city to city and state to state? >> they differ slightly. usually deadly force policies are fairly consistent. some agencies have more liberal use of force policies than others. some agencies now are starting to adopt policies that you can't shoot at a moving vehicle if the only weapon is the vehicle itself, so there's a little bit of a learning curb there for agencies. >> so in terms of, again, your analysis, the first prong being whether there was justification for detention, and then what is the third prong? >> what the officer did to overcome that resistance.

so if somebody pulls away and actively resisting, does the officer pull out his baton and strike them in the head, that would be excessive. so was the use of force proportionate to the level of resistance of the suspect? >> objectively reasonable, correct. >> yep. >> did you supply that analysis to this case? >> i did. >> in your opinion was this a use of deadly force? >> it was not. >> can you explain that. >> giving you an example that i teach in the academy classes, and so officers respond to a domestic violence situation, and the suspect is there and he fights with the officers and the officers are justified in using a taser to overcome this person's noncompliance. they tase the individual and the

individual falls to the ground, strikes their head and dies. so that is not an incident of deadly force. that's an incident of an accidental death and in my review i would look to see the suspect's resistance, was it justified to use a taser as reasonable. >> can you describe control techniques? >> control techniques is where i put my hand on you, and it could be applying joint manipulation on various parts of your body, and if if you do what i am

asking you to do, it doesn't hurt, and if you don't do it you will have stimulating pain. >> did you refer to an increase in the level of force to overcome the resistance, how would you describe that? >> police terminology is called one up manship. they don't have to fight fair. they can overcome the resistance by going up a level. >> are officers also required to de-escalate in certain circumstances? >> yes. >> can you describe the process of moving up or down that use of force? >> it's always in response to what a suspect is doing. if they are fighting, you are fighting back and trying to

control them. once they are controlled you reduce your justified levels of force, yet you are still in control of the person. anybody you take into custody, you have to maintain control of. >> again, in terms of the use of force, what relevance does possible drug influence have in that analysis? >> has quite a large impact in my opinion. >> how so? >> well, because people under the influence of drugs may not be hearing what you are trying to ask them to do. they may not understand. they may have erratic behavior. they may have total -- they don't feel pain, so techniques that you normally use to make somebody comply they are not feeling. they may have super human strength. they may have an ability to go from compliant to extreme

noncompliance in a heartbeat. >> do you train officers to keep drug influenced suspects handcuffed? >> i do. >> why? >> because there are many instances where handcuffs were removed from a drug influenced suspect and when they were removed the person is right back to fighting you and you are in a fight for your life. i have trained and been trained that when you are dealing with a drug influenced person, they stay handcuffed and are taken to where they are going to be treated. most people's head should be on a swivel. if you are walking down a street and you hear somebody running up

behind you, your mind thought should not the be, i wonder if they are going to tackle me or rob me? no, your head is on a swivel which means you are aware, and you plan and a police officer in uniform stands for certain things, and unfortunately criminals don't wear uniforms so officers don't have the luxury of being able to look at somebody and automatically determine if they are going to be a risk to them or not. >> does the concept of situational awareness factor into your analysis? >> yes. >> how so? >> what other threats are present we are dealing with, environmental, onlookers, are there more people focusing on

your arrest versus just walking down the sidewalk. the officer's exhaustion level. what are other officers doing? things of that nature. >> is an officer entitled to rely on information he or she receives from dispatch in formulating whether or not they are going to use force? >> in justifying force i would say no, and in preparing to deal with the situation they are being sent to by dispatch, i would say yes. >> how does that differ? >> an officer has to take into account what they see on the scene. dispatchers do the best jobs they can and are usually only getting information over the telephone, and the information may be inaccurate and false and may be exaggerated so it's up to the officer on the street to determine what is the best course of action. >> you have reviewed officer

chauvin's uses of force in this particular case, taking into consideration your analysis as well as some of the concepts we have talked about? >> i have. >> let's talk about mr. chauvin's uses of force. where would you say the first use of force mr. chauvin engaged in occurred? >> when he joined officer king and lane in trying to put mr. floyd in the back state of the patrol car. >> in your view of that use of force, what is your perspective on that? >> that mr. floyd's level of resistance was objectively reasonable for the officers to do the techniques they were doing. i felt that level of resistance exhibited by mr. floyd justified the officers and higher levels use of force that they chose not to select. >> would that be if an officer

chooses not to use a higher level of force would be -- >> objection, leading. >> rephrase. >> how does an officer's decision to useless force factor into de-escalation? >> so when an officer sees an incident and feels he has a justification to use these tools to use with the incident and because of the makeup or personality of the officer they choose not to, and then they choose something lesser to use and if that doesn't work they escalate. >> and you viewed information in this case, and did that include the body cameras? >> yes. >> and surveillance videos from

other stores? >> yes. >> from your perspective, just generally, what are some of the limitations of camera analysis? >> objection. >> a camera shows what an officer may not see in his peripheral vision, and it doesn't show what a officer is feeling through their hands and their sense of awareness, and in low light -- >> objection. [ inaudible ]. >> overruled. >> your last statement? >> it's about the shutter release on the body cam, it adjusts quicker to lighting situations than the human eye does. >> so in terms of the initial uses of force, the officer's

efforts to get mr. floyd into the car, you felt they were objectively reasonable. >> i did. >> did the use of force then continue after mr. floyd was restrained on the ground? >> i don't consider prone control as a use of force. >> let's back up just a second. the removal or mr. floyd's getting out of the vehicle, however that was, does that constitute a use of force? >> the manhandling or the three officers taking him out of the vehicle and putting him on the ground, yes, that's a use of force. >> was that justified in your opinion? >> yes. >> when they brought mr. floyd to the ground, are you saying you don't consider that to be a

use of force? >> up to that point it was a use of force, yes. >> once mr. floyd is on the ground in your opinion, does there continue to be some level of resistance by mr. floyd? >> yes. >> how would you describe that? >> active resistance, he was still saw in one of the body cam videos mr. floyd appeared to kick at officer lane. >> is there a reason why officers would take a suspect, an actively resisting suspect to the ground? >> yes. >> why? >> so officers are trained anytime you get resistance from a suspect or you're dealing with a high-risk suspect it's safer for you, the officer, and for the suspect to put hill on the ground, in a prone position face down for a variety of reasons. some of which are it makes the suspect's mobility diminish. they can't get up and run as quick. it takes away some of the use of their hands so they can't grab

you without turning their body, which would give an officer time to react. it limits what they can do with their feet. they can still kick but they don't have as much mobility or power if they would if they were standing. >> now, in terms of this particular case you understand mr. floyd was hand couched at this point? >> yes. >> does the fact mr. floyd was handcuffed somehow come into the analysis as to whether or not to put him into a prone position? >> no, any resister handcuffed or not should go to the ground in a prone position. >> and could you describe generally what you mean as a prone control position? >> so it's where the suspect either handcuffed, handcuffs are behind the back, placed on their stomach or chest and officers are in a position to apply body weight to keep the suspect on

the ground and to keep them further immobilized. >> would it be common practice in that situation to employ an mrt or hobble restraint? >> you could. >> what would be the factors to determine whether or not an officer would employ such a technique? >> so the officers control the person's legs? does the person need to have their legs controlled in the situation they did? and could officer lane be successful in trying to control the legs. so that's part of the force option selections they had to make. >> in terms of you're familiar officers in this particular case consider the use of the mrt? >> they did. >> and they ultimately decided against it, correct? >> that's correct.

>> how does that factor into the decision not to employ the mrt factor into the analysis. >> it's one of those situations they were justified in the maximum restraint and chose not to. so why they had that decision making i'm not sure. maybe, you know, mr. floyd made comments about being claus claustrophobic. and i know in the teaching i've done with leg restraint, if you restrain someone that is claustrophobic with leg restraint it creates reaction. >> how does the fact that ems had been summoned factor into your analysis? >> i think in the materials i've read there was a fire station literally if not seconds a, minute to a minute and a half away. so if you have someone under control and needs medical attention ems who has lot better

training than police officers can do, that would be relevant to me we call them, they're going to be instantaneously, let's stabilize the situation and wait for the professionals to show up. >> based on the reasonable police officer standard is that a factor that comes into the analysis, the ems response time? >> yes. >> what about a suspect -- keeping a suspect in the prone position who's potentially drug impaired? are their safety reasons to do that? >> again, so as i discussed earlier potential erratic behavior going from compliant to noncompliant, not feeling any pain, potentially having super human strength and it's just safer for the officer and for

the suspect to keep them in that prone control. >> why would it be safer for the suspect to keep them in that prone control? >> because if they were to get up and run, handcuffed, trip and fall other injuries on the ground, their mobility is reduced, their ability to move is reduced and the ability to hurt themselves is reduced. >> what if they became sick, for example? >> prone control instead of having someone lying on their back where they could aspirate and vomit, prone control airway is clear, if they vomit it's not going to go down their trachea or throat. >> in addition to watching the cameras you heard what mr. floyd was saying at that time, right? >> yes. >> and how do officers take into account an analysis of words versus conduct? >> so you hear what the suspect is saying. so if i want mr. floyd to get in

the back of the car and he's saying i will, i will, i will, but he's not and i'm trying to force him in and he's saying i will, i will, but he's not then his actions are telling me he's not getting in the car regardless of what he's saying. >> what about as mr. floyd was going into the car and there is this act of aggression as you've defined it, and mr. floyd at that point was saying he couldn't breathe? but he continued to say that later. how do the words he was saying initially comport with his actions in that instance? >> you know, i have advanced first aid. i certainly don't have medical degrees, but i was always and feel it's a reasonable assumption if somebody's i'm choking, i'm choking, well you're not choking because you can breathe. if someone tells me they can't

breathe and they're taking full breaths and shouting -- >> objection lack of foundation. >> overruled. >> so in terms of a reasonable police officer's standard again is a reasonable police officer who has used force in an instant, can they consider that in prolonging a detention or a prone control on a suspect? >> so if the officer was justified in using the prone control and now the suspect is on the ground in a prone control, the maintaining of the prone control to me is not a use of force. >> why is it not a use of force? >> because that's a control technique. it doesn't hurt. you've put the suspect in a position where it's safe for you

the officer, safe for them the suspect. and you're using minimal effort to keep them on the ground. >> now, you're familiar with the concept of positional asphyxia? >> i am. >> can you tell the jury the training you received for asphyxia. >> the training i received a target person for the position of asphyxia would be someone who's very obese. and now you take that obese person and you handcuff behind their back, really pulling their shoulders back, really constricting their rib cage, and if you put them first face on the ground that would be the training model for someone prone to asphyxia. when i was first in law enforcement and the training i initially did regarding leg restraints you used to hobble a person's ankle, tie the ankles

to the handcuffs and then put the person face down and that created even more pressure on a person's sternum and rib cage and reduced their ability to breathe. so that technique was modified to address positional asphyxia issues. >> you would agree that the minneapolis police department trains officers to place people in a recovery position, correct? >> yes. >> and you would agree that that is based on concerns of positional asphyxia, agreed? >> yes. >> now, are there situations where a reasonable police officer would not put a person in a prone position into the recovery position? >> yes. >> can you describe what those may be? >> so in this situation there is space limitations. mr. floyd was butted up against the tire of the patrol car. there was traffic driving down the street. there were crowd issues that took the attention of the

officers. mr. floyd was still somewhat resisting, so i think those were relatively valid reasons to keep him in the prone. >> now, in terms of your training, again, as you have been trained and trained other officers in the use of crowd control or crowd control issues, right? >> yes. >> how in law enforcement is a crowd defined? >> so a crowd just like if you look at a football stadium, so it's a group of people gathered together for a common purpose. so a crowd by definition isn't unlawful and two more people constitute a crowd. so because it's not unlawful it doesn't mean that it doesn't become a consideration for the officers. >> can you explain in your analysis how you think the crowd, thero