Derek Chauvin Trial – Day 6 (April 5, 2021)
The physician who officially pronounced George Floyd dead at the hospital on May 25, 2020. He testified that he tried to resuscitate Floyd when he was brought to the hospital that night.
“What i was able to see… and I should just note that it was from a distance… from where the officers were with Mr. Floyd, and so all I could really see were the backsides of the officers. There was also no audio to this milestone video.
And so, umm, I viewed that video, in its entirety, and quite frankly there was really nothing in terms of the actions of… at least again, this non-audio video… that really jumped out at me.
After a few minutes, it seems, umm, a paramedics vehicle pulled up to the scene, and it was at that time for the first time that I saw a glimpse of Mr. Floyd when paramedics placed him… placed his body on the gurney and umm transported him away from the scene.
But that was really, umm my first observation of that incident from that night.”
Chief Arradondo says that Chauvin’s actions did not meet the de-escalation policy, or the other policies.
(Remember, departmental policy doesn’t matter one bit in a criminal trial)
Chief Arradondo testifies Chauvin should not have done what he did (in many more words, remember he’s just a PR head of the police).
Eric Nelson puts a quick halt to the happy-go-lucky police Chief PR stunt with his first question
“When’s the last time you’ve actually arrested a suspect?” (answer: many years)
Defense: “Now, you would also agree that there is a difference between being arrested and being detained, agree?”
Chief Arradondo pauses and thinks about it for 4 seconds then says “there can be.”
That exchange should be alarming to anyone who knows even a little bit about the law – because that should have been the easiest and quickest answer to give, for the Chief of Minneapolis Police.
The fact that Chief Arradondo had to think for 4 seconds about his answer to whether there is a difference between being detained and being arrested is alarming.
It shows one of two things:
– either he actually doesn’t understand the law (which is very unlikely), or
– more likely, he was deciding how to shape his answer, for some reason, which indicates he has an ulterior motive while testifying
Eric Nelson at his best – he set it up with a real policy question but shifted to training and best practices, and quickly got Arradondo to admit that the questions about training and best practices would be best directed to the training instructors – instead of him. That opened the door for the Defense on several lines of questioning for future witnesses.
When something changes per policy, can’t wear weighted gloves anymore, for example, that’s it, no more, agreed?
But if the policy… uh if training for example evolves into a ‘best practice,’ it doesn’t prevent an officer from learning a technique he learned earlier in his career… it just may not be the best practice any more.
So I pause just to… when you say that they’re learning something but if it’s not in the line with our policy, then that would not be prohibited, if I’m hearing you correctly.
Let me… let me try to explain… Like if an officer was trained in a particular handcuffing technique, and then they go to their defensive tactics training and they say ‘this is a better way to handcuff a suspect,’ it’s not a policy change, it’s just a best practice change, and they can still use the old way they did it.
Uh it would, counciler it would have to be something that the training staff would have to… not just an officer saying ‘i want to do it this way,’ and… I mean… it’s something that would have to be authorized through our training staff, yes.
So we could talk about that kind of thing with a training, the use of force defensive tactics training, right? That would be the better place to talk… better people to talk to about that?
Break and resumed at 3:20pm
(Source: Washington Post Livestream – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP5OpOEW2_g)