‘This Wasn’t Policing’: 6 Key Elements in Closing Arguments of Derek Chauvin Trial in George Floyd’s Death

Derek Chauvin Closing arguments were held Monday in the murder trial of fired Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin , 44, in the death of George Floyd , 46. As signaled throughout the trial, the state asserted that the defendant killed the victim by kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds during a fateful arrest on May 25, 2020. “This wasn’t policing,” said prosecutor Steve Schleicher . “This was murder. The defendant is guilty of all three counts.” Schleicher cited expert witnesses who said this was neither cardiac arrhythmia nor a heart attack, as well as a toxicologist who said this was not a drug overdose. Defense lawyer Eric Nelson  argued that his client was following training that day. This contradicted state’s witnesses, including Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo . Focusing on that 9 minutes, 29 seconds left out important context from before the kneeling, Nelson said. The defense attorney maintained that Floyd died from a combination of issues, in particular drug and heart issues. Nelson asserted that the stress of arrest was not a factor. The state, on the other hand, said that the defendant’s actions killed Floyd. Here are six key points covered in court on Monday. 1. What Did Police Know at the Time? As oft reported, then-Minneapolis police officers Thomas Lane  and J. Alexander Kueng  responded to a call at the Cup Foods store on May 25, 2020. Chauvin and Tou Thao  followed soon after. Floyd was accused of using a counterfeit $20 bill. Officers tried to force him into a squad vehicle, but he maintained that he was claustrophobic. They could not get Floyd inside. Instead, cops switched to holding Floyd on the ground, putting him in the prone position while handcuffed. The longer Chauvin remained on Floyd’s neck, the more vocal bystanders became. They called out cops as the Floyd visibly became more and more unresponsive. The events resulted in all four officers getting fired the following day. Thao, Lane, and Kueng are set for a separate trial on lesser charges in August. Nelson maintains that Chauvin followed his training, and acted as a reasonable officer would under the circumstances. The circumstances were that the business requested help, Floyd was large (more than six feet tall), and Floyd was possibly under the influence of alcohol or something else. This was a code 3 (use of sirens; get there fast), and a priority 1 (the person is on the scene). The defendant is not guilty of a crime if he used force as authorized by law, the defense said. The standard is what facts the officer knew at the time he used force. #DerekChauvinTrial – Nelson: the state has really focused on the 9 min and 29 secs but a reasonable officer takes into account the entire time leading up to that point. He says human behavior is unpredictable, “it’s constantly rotating”, the officer’s assessment. @LawCrimeNetwork — Cathy Russon (@cathyrusson) April 19, 2021 “This was an authorized use of force no matter how unattractive it might be. And that’s reasonable doubt,” Nelson said. @LawCrimeNetwork #DerekChauvin #GeorgeFloyd — Angenette Levy (@Angenette5) April 19, 2021 From the defense point of view, Chauvin would have arrived seeing Lane and Kueng trying to get Floyd into the vehicle. A reasonable officer would have seen active resistance, Nelson said. The defendant would have seen white foam in the man’s mouth. He would have noted Floyd’s size. He would have known that there were two rookies, who did not use enough force to put Floyd into the squad vehicle. Chauvin got involved in the struggle, as Floyd kicked out, almost knocking over Lane. He mentioned a 911 operator seeing the vehicle rocking back and forth through surveillance footage. Nelson highlighted the unpredictability of human behavior, suggesting that officers would have been concerned about being in danger. During rebuttal, prosecutor Jerry Blackwell  dismissed Nelson’s use of the phrase “reasonable officer,” saying it was not a magic wand you apply to Chauvin. 2. Chauvin Was Driven By Ego, Prosecutors Said Prosecutor Schleicher asserted that Chauvin refused to stop kneeling on Floyd’s neck because of “ego-driven pride.” The defendant was not going to do what the bystanders told him to do. Chauvin “chose pride over police” that day, Schleicher said. He did not follow hundreds of hours of training, and did not perform CPR. Chauvin knew better, he just didn’t do better, Schleicher said. The prosecutor said that the defendant ignored the policies of the department and the motto of the department: “to protect with courage, to serve with compassion.” No courage was shown, Schleicher said. All that was required was a little compassion. He asked the jury to set aside the notion that it’s impossible for a police officer to do something like this. “This is not an anti-police prosecution,” he said. “This is a pro-police prosecution.” Schleicher highlighted the chief’s testimony that Chauvin’s kneeling violated use of force and de-escalation policies, and violated duty to render aid. Citing expert testimony, Schleicher said that police did not train what Chauvin did to Floyd. He also highlighted testimony from Lt. Richard Zimmerman , the head of the Minneapolis police homicide division. The investigator testified he was never trained to kneel on the neck of a prone person who was handcuffed because doing so would constitute deadly force. 3. Floyd Was Terrified But Compliant, the State Said Schleicher dismissed the idea that Floyd resisted police. The victim was “terrified” as officers approached him from both sides of his vehicle, and Lane pulled out a gun on him. Floyd was compliant, the state said. He put his hands on the car steering wheel, stepped out, and submitted himself to be handcuffed. He sat on the sidewalk. He gave his name when asked, even spelling it. “Where’s the resistance?” said Schleicher. “Where’s that?” Floyd’s reluctance to get into the back of the vehicle was because he was big, and the back of the squad car was not. It looked like a little cage, Schleicher said. The victim tried to explain that he had anxiety and claustrophobia, Schleicher said. When police took Floyd out of the vehicle, he said, “Thank you.” Citing the police chief, Schleicher said the department was experienced in dealing with calls for people in crisis. Accordingly, the officers at the scene should have known that Floyd was not trying to escape. The problem was the back of the vehicle, as the victim explained over and over. The state said a pivotal moment was when Lane asked Chauvin if they should put Floyd on his side. Chauvin said no, citing the victim’s size and the possibility of drug use. The state maintained that Chauvin went overboard with Floyd. In their presentation, they worked to differentiate between a risk and a threat. Floyd’s size was merely a risk, said Schleicher. It was neither a crime, nor a threat. Being “on something” may be a risk, but it is not a threat, the prosecutor said. 4. The Bystanders Both sides sought to emphasize certain points of view at the scene. Nelson, who said in opening statements that the crowd distracted officers away from Floyd, worked to highlight what Chauvin was thinking and doing. He wanted to present this as reasonable. Throughout the state’s closings, however, prosecutors said that what happened to Floyd was so obviously horrible that bystanders got involved. One did not need to be a doctor to realize it. Even a 9-year-old girl told the defendant to get off of Floyd. “That’s how simple it was,” said Blackwell. Bystanders, including MMA-trained security guard Donald Williams  and Minneapolis firefighter Genevieve Hansen , testified that they realized that Floyd was in dire straits and they tried to save him. Nelson tried to dismantle their perspective, saying that while it was okay they were upset, their personal points-of-view and experiences shaped what they were seeing in a way that was inconsistent with the evidence. #DerekChauvinTrial – Nelson on Donald Williams perspective vs. perception stating Williams is MMA fighter, he has experiences that cause him to react differently, he perceived #GeorgeFloyd was being choked with a “blood choke” @LawCrimeNetwork pic.twitter.com/BlP3OubWV9 — Cathy Russon (@cathyrusson) April 19, 2021 #DerekChauvinTrial – Nelson on perspective vs. perception of bystanders. Charles McMillan has a 3rd grade education, he says he has more info of the entirety of the situation having seen it from the beginning, but perception is affected by his life experiences @LawCrimeNetwork pic.twitter.com/SyYBQijWTM — Cathy Ru
‘This Wasn’t Policing’: 6 Key Elements in Closing Arguments of Derek Chauvin Trial in George Floyd’s Death posted first on http://realempcol.tumblr.com/rss