BYSTANDER VIDEO THAT YOU
REVIEWED?
>> YES, I DO.
>> NOW SIR, BASED UPON YOUR
REVIEW OF ALL OF THE INFORMATION
THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED, DO YOU
BELIEVE THAT THE DEFENDANT
FOLLOWED DEPARTMENTAL POLICY
5-304 REGARDING DEESCALATION?
>> I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT AGREE
WITH THAT.
>> AND HOW SO?
>> THAT ACTION IS NOT
DEESCALATION.
AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE
FRAMEWORK OF OUR SANCTITY OF
LIFE AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE
PRINCIPLES AND VALUES THAT WE
HAVE, THAT ACTION GOES CONTRARY
TO WHAT WERE TAUGHT.
>> AS YOU REFLECT ON EXHIBIT 17,
I MUST ASK YOU, IS THIS A
TRAINED MINNEAPOLIS POLICE
DEPARTMENT DEFENSIVE TACTICS
TECHNIQUE
TECHNIQUE?
>> IT IS NOT.
>> WE READ THE DEPARTMENTAL
POLICY ON NECK RESTRAINTS.
IS THIS A NECK RESTRAINT?
>> THE CONSCIOUS NECK RESTRAINT
BY POLICY MENTIONS LIGHT TO
MODERATE PRESSURE.
WHEN I LOOK AT EXHIBIT 17 AND
WHEN I LOOK AT THE FACIAL
EXPRESSION OF MR. FLOYD, THAT
DOES NOT APPEAR IN ANY WAY,
SHAPE, OR FORM THAT THAT IS
LIGHT TO MODERATE PRESSURE.
>> SO IS IT YOUR BELIEF THEN
THAT THIS PARTICULAR FORM OF
RESTRAINT, IF THATS -- THATS
WHAT WELL CALL IT, IN FACT
VIOLATES DEPARTMENTAL POLICY?
>> I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT
VIOLATES OUR POLICY.
>> ARE YOU AWARE NOW THAT THE
DEFENDANT MAINTAINED THIS
POSITION ON GEORGE FLOYD FOR
NINE MINUTES AND 29 SECONDS?
>> I AM AWARE OF THAT.
>> I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED THAT
FORCE HAS TO BE REASONABLE WHEN
ITS APPLIED AT THE BEGINNING
AND THROUGH THE ENTIRE
ENCOUNTER, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> IS WHAT YOU SEE IN EXHIBIT 17
IN YOUR OPINION WITHIN
INDIANAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENTAL
POLICY 5-300 AUTHORIZING THE USE
OF REASONABLE FORCE?
>> IT IS NOT.
>> AND WHY NOT?
>> THAT IS -- IT HAS TO BE
OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE.
WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, INFORMATION, THE
THREAT TO THE OFFICER, THE
THREAT TO OTHERS.
AND WE -- THE SEVERITY OF THAT.
SO THAT IS NOT PART OF OUR
POLICY, THAT IS NOT WHAT WE
TEACH, AND THAT SHOULD BE
CONDONED.
>> WHEN DO YOU BELIEVE OR DO YOU
HAVE A BELIEF AS TO WHEN THIS
RESTRAINT, RESTRAINT ON THE
GROUND THAT YOUVE VIEWED SHOULD
HAVE STOPPED?
>> ONCE MR. FLOYD, AND THIS IS
BASED ON MY VIEWING OF THE VIDEO
VIDEOS -- ONCE MORE FLOYD HAD
STOPPED RESISTING, AND CERTAINLY
ONCE HE WAS IN DISTRESS AND
TRYING TO VERBALIZE THAT, THAT
SHOULD HAVE STOPPED.
THERES AN INITIAL
REASONABLENESS IN TRYING TO JUST
GET HIM UNDER CONTROL OVER -- IN
THE FIRST FEW SECONDS.
BUT ONCE THERE WAS NO LODGENGER
RESISTANCE AND CLEARLY WHEN MR.
FLOYD WAS NO LONGER RESPONSIVE
AND EVEN MOTIONLESS, TO CONTINUE
TO APPLY THAT LEVEL OF FORCE TO
A PERSON PRONED OUT, HANDCUFFED
BEHIND THEIR BACK, THAT -- THAT
IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM IS
ANYTHING THAT IS BY POLICY, IS
NOT PART OF OUR TRAINING, AND IT
IS CERTAINLY NOT PART OF OUR
ETHICS OREGON OUR VALUES.
>> BASED ON REVIEW OF THE VIDEO
AND BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE AND
TRAINING AS AN MPD OFFICER, DID
YOU SEE SIGNS DURING THE
ENCOUNTER THAT MR. FLOYD WAS
EXHIBITING BEING IN MEDICAL
DISTRESS?
>> YES.
YES.
>> AND YOU SAW AT ONE POINT I
THINK YOU JUST TESTIFIED THAT
MR. FLOYD WAS UNRESPONSIVE.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND THAT OFFICERS, WERE YOU
AWARE THAT OFFICERS COULDNT
FIND A PULSE?
>> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT, SIR?
>> WERE YOU AWARE THAT OFFICERS
AT THE TIME OF THE RESTRAINT
WERE UNABLE TO FIND A PULSE?
>> YES, I WAS AWARE OF THAT.
>> AND SO STATED.
>> I WAS AWARE THAT THE OFFICERS
WERE NOT ABLE TO FIND A PULSE,
YES.
>> DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT OR
ANY OF THE OFFICERS ATTEMPT TO
PROVIDE FIRST AID TO MR. FLOYD?
>> I DID NOT SEE ANY OF THE
DEFENDANTS TRY TO ATTEMPT TO
PROVIDE FIRST AID TO MR. FLOYD.
>> THE DEFENDANT DID NOT TRY
CPR, HE DID NOT START CHEST
COMPRESSIONS?
>> OBJECTION, ARGUMENTIVE AND
LEADING.
>> SUSTAINED AS LEADING.
REPHRASE.
>> DID YOU SEE THEM -- DID YOU