A Summary of the trial - Week 2 Day 5 cont'd...
Witness affirms that putting Floyd in the prone position was unreasonable. Nelson points out that that was contrary to force training. Witness affirms that the prone position should only be used as a transitory position only.
Nelson refers to an opinion piece by the witness to the Washington Post four days after the Floyd incident in which it opined an excessive use of force. Witness responds that he formed the opinion that putting your knee across someone's neck except in absolutely unbelievably rare circumstances is generally an inappropriate use of force.
Asked if he could determine what force the defendant vhad applied to Floyd's neck, witness responds that he could not with any specificity. That the pressured varied occasionally.
Asked if reasonable police officers expect an EMS response within a reasonable time, witness responds yes...when you call EMS you expect them to respond.
That a reasonable officer needs to take notice of bystanders, witness agrees if threatening. That a reasonable police officer would know that they are being recorded, witness agrees that is fair description.
Nelson suggests that a reasonable use of force might not look pretty to a bystander, witness agrees that an officer can act reasonably in terms of generally accepted police practises and it can look bad but I do not think that is the case here.
Nelson makes reference to use of force continuum and passive resistance. Specifically where Floyd appears to kick out at officers after an officer attempted to control his legs.
Nelson states that reasonable officers could be distracted by bystanders, by what was occurring at the suspect's car, on the other side of the street, by radio traffic etc, witness concurs.
Nelson states that in reviewing the events, witness was not experiencing what the officers felt at that point, witness responds that individually he was not experiencing it no...that he was applying the reasonable officer on the scene framework.
Nelson states that witness does not have the sensory responses to what the officers were doing, witness states that tactile feedback does not show up on video...right.
That in doing his use of force review the witness was not doing it in a dangerous environment, witness responds that without making any jokes about his kids that no, he wasn't doing it in a dangerous situation.
Nelson states that witness has the luxury of slow motion, enhancement, looking at it from different perspectives, agreed? Witness responds that for the portion of the review where he was identifying what the underlying facts were, yes, I can slow video down, I can freeze frame, as I am taking those facts, I agree that a reasonable officer on the scene does not have those capabilities.
Witness states that officers can do various things to mitigate risk if a compliant suspect later becomes non compliant. Accepts officers can use some force to deal with passive resistance. That officers can maintain control when a suspect IDs placed in the recovery position.
End of cross examination.
Re direct examination.
Witness agrees need to constantly review their awareness of what is in front of them. That a reasonable officer should have taken note when a fellow officer pointed out that the suspect had no pulse. That someone struggling to breathe in a positional asphyxia situation is fighting to get air, not fighting officers.
End of direct examination.
[Judge advises jury that the defence case to start tomorrow with the last day of evidence to be Friday. Closing arguments to start on Monday which gives both sides extra time to prepare. Jury should expect sequestration from Monday so they should pack an overnight bag]