George Floyd

Exactly Where Was Derek Chauvin's Knee, and Does It Matter?

A use-of-force expert says the officers who pinned George Floyd to the ground should have recognized the risk of positional asphyxia.


Los Angeles Police Department Sgt. Jody Stiger, a use-of-force expert who testified for the prosecution in Derek Chauvin's murder trial, agrees with Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo that the defendant violated his department's policies when he pinned George Floyd to the pavement with his knee for more than nine minutes. Stiger, who testified yesterday and today, elaborated on the reasoning behind that conclusion.

At the time of Floyd's May 25 arrest for using a counterfeit $20 bill to buy cigarettes, the Minneapolis Police Department's Policy and Procedure Manual said an officer "shall only use the amount of force that is objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances known to that [officer] at the time force is used." Tracking the Supreme Court's guidelines in the 1989 case Graham v. Connor, those facts and circumstances include "the severity of the crime at issue," "whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others," and "whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."

In this case, the crime—a nonviolent misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $3,000 and up to a year in jail—was not exactly severe. Stiger agreed with Arradondo that "typically you wouldn't even expect to use any type of force" in "a normal situation where you are dealing with someone…who is using a counterfeit bill."

Eric Nelson, Chauvin's attorney, has criticized Officers Thomas Lane and J. Alexander Kueng for needlessly escalating the situation by trying to force Floyd into the back of their patrol car, which precipitated panicked resistance. Floyd struggled with the officers, saying he was claustrophobic, complaining that he could not breathe, and asking to ride in the front seat. "If Kueng and Lane had chosen to de-escalate instead of struggle, Mr. Floyd may have survived," Nelson said in a pretrial motion.

Stiger agreed with Nelson that a less aggressive approach seemed to be appropriate. "They could have continued to try to verbalize with him," he said. "It appeared early on that Officer Kueng gained a slight rapport with Mr. Floyd….It would have been best to try to continue to verbalize with him, because [Kueng] had gained a rapport with him, and try to get him to comply with his commands by verbalization."

Once Kueng and Lane were struggling to place Floyd in the back of their car, Stiger said, his resistance nevertheless justified the use of force. "Initially," he said, "when Mr. Floyd was being placed in the back of the vehicle, he was actively resisting the officers, so at that point the officers were justified in utilizing force to try to have him comply with their commands and to seat him in the back seat of the vehicle."

After Floyd was pulled out of the car and onto the street, he was initially on his knees, and he thanked the officers for letting him out. At that point, Chauvin, assisted by Lane and Kueng, pinned Floyd facedown on the pavement with his hands cuffed behind his back. As they were tackling him, Stiger said, Floyd moved his leg in a way that could be interpreted as an attempt to kick the officers. But "once he was placed in the prone position on the ground," Stiger said, "he slowly ceased his resistance, and at that point the officers…should have slowed down or stopped their force."

Instead they kept him pinned facedown for nine and a half minutes, even after he was no longer talking or moving and no longer had a detectable pulse. Chauvin, the senior officer on the scene, disregarded Floyd's many complaints that he was having trouble breathing, Lane's repeated suggestion that Floyd should be rolled onto his side, and the objections of bystanders who warned that Floyd's life was in danger.

Since Floyd did not pose "an immediate threat" and was not "actively resisting," Stiger said, the continued prone restraint did not meet the Graham v. Connor test. In addition to the fact that Floyd was not trying to assault the officers or threatening to do so, he said, the presence of five cops at the scene should have factored into their determination of whether Floyd posed any threat that justified their use of force. Based on the video record, Stiger concluded that Floyd "was not actively resisting at the time that he was in the prone position." In these circumstances, he said, "no force should have been used once he was in that position."

Video of the arrest shows Chauvin with his knee on Floyd's neck, a restraint technique that the prosecution says Chauvin used for more than nine minutes. Nelson says Chauvin's knee was actually between Floyd's shoulders "at the base of the neck."

Here is how Stiger described a still from video footage of Floyd's arrest: "That shows the defendant with…his left knee on Mr. Floyd's neck and his right knee on Mr. Floyd's back." Three other stills likewise showed Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck. Based on his review of the record, Stiger said, those images accurately reflect Chauvin's position throughout the encounter. He said the visual evidence indicates that Chauvin was applying most of his weight to Floyd's body.

The current version of the police department's policy manual, which was revised in response to Floyd's death, prohibits the use of neck restraints. But at the time of Floyd's arrest, police were allowed to use neck restraints in certain circumstances.

The manual defined a neck restraint as "compressing one or both sides of a person's neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck)." In one version of the technique, "the subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure." That technique, a.k.a. a "sleeper hold," requires applying pressure to both sides of the neck, cutting off blood flow to the brain. Another kind of neck restraint aims to "control" the subject, rather than making him pass out, by "only applying light to moderate pressure."

The first kind of neck restraint was allowed only when the subject "is exhibiting active aggression," when it is necessary "for life saving purposes," or when the subject "is exhibiting active resistance" and "lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective." The second version—the one that Chauvin seems to have used—was allowed when the subject "is actively resisting."

According to Stiger, however, Chauvin continued to use a neck restraint long after Floyd was no longer resisting. Furthermore, applying most of your weight to an arrestee's neck probably does not qualify as "light to moderate pressure."

Stiger said kneeling on Floyd for as long as Chauvin did amounted to deadly force, because "the pressure that was being caused by the body weight could cause positional asphyxia." He said the danger of positional asphyxia, which has been widely recognized for decades, exists whenever a handcuffed arrestee is restrained on his stomach for an extended period of time. He noted that applying pressure magnifies that risk.

Nelson has said the presence of outraged bystanders distracted Chauvin and the other officers, which he implied helps explain their use of force against Floyd, their failure to render aid when Floyd was no longer responsive, or both. Stiger, who said he has made arrests while surrounded by angry people throwing bottles and making threats, noted that the bystanders in this case were not violent and did not verbally threaten the officers, although they hurled a few insults (such as bum) and used foul language (such as bullshit and fuck). "I did not perceive them as being a threat," he said.

In any event, Stiger said, the behavior of bystanders cannot justify the use of force against an arrestee that would not otherwise be reasonable. He also expressed doubt that the officers were in fact so distracted that they did not realize Floyd was in distress, noting that they heard his complaints and verbally responded to them.

Although the use of force must be "objectively reasonable," Nelson noted while questioning Stiger, that determination is supposed to be based on what "a reasonable officer" would do in the same circumstances. That standard recognizes that "police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation."

Nelson noted that Floyd was already complaining that he could not breathe while Kueng and Lane were trying to force him into their squad car. He suggested that Floyd may have "feigned a physical ailment" to avoid arrest, or at least that the officers perceived it that way and were therefore skeptical when Floyd said he was having trouble breathing—27 times, by the prosecution's count—while pinned to the ground.

Nelson also noted that there was reason to believe Floyd, who had swallowed black-market "Percocet" tablets containing fentanyl and methamphetamine, was under the influence of drugs (although he denied it); that Floyd had resisted so much that the officers were unable to keep him in the car; and that a handcuffed suspect can still pose a threat to police. He argued that Floyd, while restrained on the ground, may have been resisting in a way that was not apparent in the videos—a suggestion that Stiger rejected.

Nelson suggested that Chauvin used a widely accepted prone restraint technique that involves kneeling "between the shoulder blades at the base of the neck," which is "standard practice" across the country. But Stiger noted that "officers are always trained to stay away from the neck as much as possible." Even while implying that Chauvin did not use a neck restraint, Nelson noted that the Minneapolis Police Department at the time authorized the use of that technique against suspects who are "actively resisting."

Regardless of which prone restraint is used, Stiger said, officers have long been trained to "immediately" put arrestees in "a side recovery position" or "sit them up" after handcuffing them, even if they continue to resist. At that point, he said, police can "hold them down in the side recovery position" or "utilize a hobble" that restrains their hands and feet.

Nelson seemed surprised by that information, which is obviously relevant in judging whether Floyd's prolonged prone restraint was reckless, regardless of exactly where Chauvin put his knee or for how long. If prosecutors are not careful, the dispute about the position of Chauvin's knee may obscure the broader question of whether pinning a handcuffed man facedown on the ground for more than nine minutes was objectively reasonable.

When prosecutor Steve Schleicher asked Stiger to clarify whether the risk of positional asphyxia depends on whether pressure is applied specifically to the neck, Stiger said "it's the pressure on the body" that "complicates breathing." Whether Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's neck or, as Nelson prefers to describe it, "between the shoulder blades at the base of the neck," the crucial point is that he was pressing down on Floyd throughout the encounter, which aggravated the asphyxiation risk created by forcing him to lie on his chest with his hands behind his back. That situation made Floyd's complaints that he could not breathe perfectly understandable and plausible, even if the cops thought he was faking.

NEXT: Is the Great Stagnation Over?

George Floyd Police Abuse Excessive Force Search and Seizure Fourth Amendment Criminal Justice Minneapolis

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

98 responses to “Exactly Where Was Derek Chauvin's Knee, and Does It Matter?

  1. Alright, which one of you assholes deserves the internet cookie for having predicted this article coming this morning.

    1. Chtst. I forgot who it was as well, but they win a prize. We really should start a pool for these things.

      1. JOIN PART TIME JOB FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings ccx are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. The prosecution was terrible. They killed their own case by countering the original autopsy report.

      1. Oh? How did they do that?

        1. My God. It is like you want to verify your own ignorance.

          I mean, did you even bother watching any of the trial at all? Even the opening statements?

          Lol. Just sad man.

          1. This article has been posted multiple times by multiple people too

            1. So multiple and then multiple.

              Got it.

          2. I have watched near all of it.

            Is this opinion piece all you have?

            1. So youre saying you watched the opening statements but didn’t understand it. Sorry. Can’t help you there.

              1. Jeff gets more annoying and retarded with each new sockpuppet.

                1. Annoying


                  Sock puppet


                  Thank you. You have been very helpful.

                  Oh just one more thing.

                  You used the term samefagging. I do not know what that is. Can you explain it?

          3. More specifically.

            You do understand the difference between an autopsy and forensic pathology. Correct?

            Show me where the prosecution has “countered” the medical autopsy findings. Give me evidence.

            The initial pathology report has not been questioned. Nor has the veracity of the pathologist. You just do not understand what it means.

            1. Oh they understand. They are just gaslighting.

              1. Is gaslighting the equivalent of genital mutilation like you think not having a vast welfare state is?

                Did you also fail to understand the linked article??

              2. Samefagging your socks is really pathetic, Jeff.

            2. It is literally in the linked article discussed by an actual law professor. Do you want pretty pictures to go through it?

            3. Also, more specifically, you have provided zero actual counter evidence or why Professor Turley is wrong in his assessment. Soooooooooooo weird.

            4. The right-wing narrative is set in stone by now. Derek Chauvin must be set free, otherwise “the left will win”. It doesn’t matter what happened to Floyd (and whatever did happen, it was his own fault because drugs). It doesn’t matter what Chauvin *actually* did. All that matters is whether the Left will be able to use the result of the trial to further their agenda. If a guilty verdict meant the Left would be emboldened, then the right-wingers around here, being the reactionaries that they are, must advocate for an acquittal, and must push the acquittal narrative as hard as they can. Nothing matters except Good vs. Evil, Team Red vs. Team Blue.

              1. Jeff is pretty much at the point where he just doesn’t give a fuck anymore and is just throwing out wild accusations in the hopes that something will stick.
                That’s what losing looks like folks.

                He should really pay his bosses their fifty-cents back.

              2. Nothing matters except Good vs. Evil, Team Red vs. Team Blue.

                You’re right! No one cares about the Rule of Law vs Mob Rule… No one cares about Due Process… No one cares about reasonable doubt, blind justice, or the pursuit of truth.

                The pushback from the right is to DIRECTLY counter the retards on the left who don’t believe we even need a trial and who have all but promised to riot and destroy in Chauvin doesn’t hang. But you already know all this, don’t you?

    3. Read that too. Idiocy is nothing if not thoroughly fucking predictable.

      Good work, whoever you are.

    4. It was me, I think. Cant remembef what username It was under. But somebody had to ask why it mattered if the outside experts nitpicked about whether the restraint was strictly by the book or not if THAT WASNT WHAT KILLED HIM

    5. *takes a bow*

  2. “use the amount of force that is objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances known to that [officer] at the time”

    How many commenters find that guidance objectively reasonable? That is, objectively reasonable in light of what you know at this time?

  3. I think it’s pretty clear the outcome and a desire to avoid a personal public struggle session is what is informing all these expert opinions. I would bet prior to 2020 these very same supervisors/experts would be falling over themselves holding up the very same use of force policies to explain why Chauvin’s actions were regrettable but permitted and necessary.

    1. Are you saying that peaceful protests that burned down entire city blocks, killed dozens and injured hundreds might affect the trial outcome?

      1. It might enter their subconscious as in full battle gear they drive through their riot-torn city.

  4. Reason doesn’t care about facts just getting revenge.

  5. Lol. Do facts matter in a murder trial requiring beyond a reasonable doubt legal standard?

    Fuck off sullum.

  6. It matters if the prosecution presented its case based on the idea that Chauvin’s knee was on Floyd’s neck rather than general pressure from Chauvin caused Floyd’s death. Presenting the charge sloppily may induce a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.

    And again, Floyd had been complaining of not being able to breath from the time he was put in the car. He may not have been faking, but that may be complications from the drugs in his system, so it is weak evidence that Floyd’s respiratory issues were caused by Chauvin.

    The prosecution’s job is to eliminate doubts in their case, not introduce them.

    1. if someone is having issues breathing, possibly due to drugs, the worst thing you can do is put them prone, handcuffed behind the back, with someone putting full weight on the back near the shoulder-blades….. i know there is a great desire from many to absolve this cop based on the drugs, but you simply cannot pretend Chauvin’s actions were not a factor.

      1. We’re talking about murder. Being a factor doesn’t cut it. It’s why the prosecutor’s best bet was for manslaughter.

      2. You misunderstand my point. The question is not whether the evidence shows Chauvin acted incorrectly, the question is whether the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt whether he committed murder. My contention has been that the prosecution’s pandering to public opinion has led them to overcharge Chauvin in a way that the evidence does not support beyond a reasonable doubt.

        1. Marilyn Mosby made similar mistake in overcharging the officers responsible for Freddie Grays death. Theres always a high bar to clear in convicting officers because the law allows them to commit much more violence than ordinary people.

      3. Look at the pictures, again. Chauvin’s other knee is on the ground, by changing which knee he is leaning on, he can moderate how much weight is on Floyd’s back.
        There is no indication full weight was ever on Floyd.

  7. Better headline:

    Exactly Where Was Derek Chauvin’s Knee, And What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make?

  8. on his neck!
    on his neck!


    doesn’t matter where it was!!

    Fuck off and die, Reason, and you too Sullum, you left wing piece of shit.

    1. +1000

      1. times eleventy

    2. Call Jacob Sullum for all your goal-post-moving needs…

  9. The question I keep asking is when will the prosecution present the coroner’s report and and the coroner as a witness.

    1. “coroner as a witness.”

      I’m not sure they need it. They have all these other police officers testifying against a brother officer. This almost never happens, it’s pure gold, prosecution wise.

      1. Ahh yes. The old ignore the facts relevant to the case argument.

        1. The prosecution is going for a conviction. Surprise!

        2. That faggot cop at the least contributed to George Floyd’s death because he was so hopped up on ego and power he couldn’t even turn the guy on his side as is standard procedure once cuffed, a fact relevant to the case, and no amount of cop cock sucking is going to change that. Chauvin is definitely guilty of manslaughter, though the murder charge is laughable.

          1. Chauvin is definitely guilty of manslaughter

            You might want to re-read the Minnesota statutes on manslaughter, specifically 609.20 and 609.205. The only subsection which is even close to applicable would be 609.205(1):

            A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:

            (1) by the person’s culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another

            The question then becomes whether or Chauvin was negligent AND took an unreasonable risk. And that’s anything but definite right now given some really strong cross examinations by the defense (see Marcil and Mackenzie). But this is why we are having the trial in the first place.

            1. The negligence in this situation would not be restraining Floyd (which the prosecution’s witness Wednesday more or less completely supported on cross-examination), but in not monitoring Floyd while he died despite being in custody and physically contacting the man.

              However, I think that the prosecution is undermining even this case by continually introducing incomplete testimony that the defense is shredding on cross-examination. By going for murder, they are ruining their chances at convicting for manslaughter

  10. Reason wants riots, property destruction, and death.

    1. Two words: bit coin.

  11. “Los Angeles Police Department Sgt. Jody Stiger, a “use-of-force expert”


    I’m guessing that the karate instructor from Napolean Dynamite was unavailable to give expert testimony.

    1. The upcoming fighter in the crowd already gave his expert opinion on choke holds.

      1. Ufc* fighter.

    2. Still a lot of words to say you get on your knees to suck cop dick, faggot.

  12. A use-of-force expert says the officers who pinned George Floyd to the ground should have recognized the risk of positional asphyxia.

    This is fair. Did George Floyd die from positional asphyxia?


    2. Per the original autopsy report, no. Died of heart failure.

      Per the family autopsy report preferred by the prosecution, no. Died of a heart attack but lack of oxygen may have contributed.

  13. That situation made Floyd’s complaints that he could not breathe perfectly understandable and plausible, even if the cops thought he was faking.

    And if the cops thought he was faking, then the arrest becomes subjectively reasonable. Guess who walks?

    1. did they think he was still faking when they could not find a pulse, too?

      1. Is the lack of pulse the determinate that he can’t breathe due to pressure on his shoulders, or just proof he died in some manner?

        Btw, they called for an EMT well before he died.

        1. either way, it does eliminate the excuse for continuing to kneel on him…. which the cop did.

  14. If it wasn’t force that was not permitted and Chauvin knew this from training, then he’s a lone wolf bad cop and the Floyd case is not evidence of “systemic racism.”

    1. that is fair.

      personally, i think the reality is more in the grey area…. i think he was a bad cop, but i also think that many policies enable bad cops to push the limits of what is reasonable…..

      the racial aspect gets misrepresented. the problem is not current racism, it is past racism that led to the militarization of our police departments…. disproportionately more in minority communities. militarized police departments are the problem, we just happen to have more of those where minorities live.

      1. Racism is irrelevant.

        There is zero evidence of it and actually being racist in and of itself is not a crime

        It would be grounds for dismissal from the police but is irrelevant in this case

        1. “Racism is irrelevant.”

          It is not irrelevant. When a white person dies at the hands of police like this, there is hardly a fuss raised. Maybe a candle light vigil for the victim with the police maintaining a discreet and respectful distance. With a black person, you get the whole militarized presence confronting, gassing, clubbing and ordering people about.

          1. And yet the only protestor killed by cops in the last year at a protest was a white woman.

            1. And the reaction of her white skinned compatriots? Not even a candle light vigil. Bupkis. Had she been black, there would have been tsuris.

        2. i thought i was a bit more clear, when i said “gets misrepresented,” and when i explicitly said that it was not current racism.

          the relevance is that there was a historical problem who’s impact is still felt today…. and until that problem is corrected, we will continue to hear people talk about racism even when none of the people involved are racists. it isn’t really relevant to the trial, itself…… but it is the reason anyone is talking about it. only a police force that treats citizens as enemy combatants has things like this happen, and we have more of those types of police forces in minority communities.

          1. “i explicitly said that it was not current racism. ”

            Current usage is broader than the classic definition – ‘that a person’s race (skin color) is their primary determinant feature,’

            The current usage invokes racism whenever an issue (whether gentrification, police brutality, etc) cuts disproportionally across racial lines where the blacks are on the bad side of the equation.

            Calling individuals racist is best reserved for those classical racists or just plain bigots. This Chauvin may well have had very positive disposition towards minorities; I haven’t been following the matter, so he may be the second most unracist person in the world, after Trump, of course, but nevertheless the strangling can be called racist insofar as it is an instance of police brutality.

      2. Maybe the “militarized police” where minorities live is a reaction to what they see there.

        They will stop policing these areas. I’m sure everything will be great then.

        1. i see you are ignorant of history.

      3. He’s probably a “bad cop” in the sense of not being all that competent at the job. So far there has been no evidence presented that indicates malice.

  15. Putting a felony suspect into a patrol car is now “needlessly escalating” . Arrests are now voluntary for a subset of the populace (not priests holding mass or those openimg a salon during WuFlu season)

  16. George Floyd was overdosing on heroin/fentanyl/methamphetamine (which makes people act crazy) while resisting arrest for more than a half hour, while claiming he couldn’t breathe (before and after he was in the back seat of the police car).

    Chauvin was doing his job as he was trained. But the left wing Dems in Minneapolis (who endorsed the BLM riots and then defunded the police), left wing media propagandists (who falsely claimed violent riots were “mostly peaceful” and corrupt MN Keith Ellison (who withheld 20 minutes of police video showing Floyd resisting arrest and claiming he couldn’t breathe while in the police car until September, after BLM rioters destroyed hundreds of neighborhoods in cities) threw Chauvin under the bus in order to promote their socialist and racist agenda (that claims to oppose racism).

    Then the judge in MN refused to move the trial out of Minneapolis to ensure Chauvin will NOT get a fair trial.

    Meanwhile, Sullum is now a left wing propagandist who suffers from a terminal case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    1. “Then the judge in MN refused to move the trial out of Minneapolis to ensure Chauvin will NOT get a fair trial. ”

      Because if the trial were held somewhere else, Portland Oregon, for example, it would have to be fair. You’d whine about it no matter where the trial was held.

  17. If libertarianism wants to argue that police are bad, it should choose better examples.

    1. How about the guy that was violating a restraining order and then went for a knife when the cops showed up?

  18. He was executing a legal non lethal restraint move.

    He also didn’t need to be doing it.

    Just call EMT and let the zip tied cuffed guy to flop around on the pavement

    It’s preposterous to call it murder. He’s guilty of a manslaughter. The debate is voluntary vs involuntary

    1. “The debate is voluntary vs involuntary”

      Nobody forced him to knee his neck for nine minutes.

      1. Nobody forced you to type that bullshit sentence.

        1. Zombies have no control over their knees. Unlike police officers.

    2. “It’s preposterous to call it murder. He’s guilty of a manslaughter.”

      My thoughts exactly. To me this was a case of an officer who followed protocol without taking into account a certain situation.
      “I can’t breathe” is probably a common complaint of anyone put in a neck hold and the officers heard it before multiple times. 99% of the time the perp doesn’t end up dying. An Asian officer told a bystander something to the effect of “if he can talk he can breath”

      Once Floyd mentioned that he had drugs in him the Chauvin should have adjustments. This is why veteran officers who knows what they’re doing are so important.

  19. I am only following along with Reason’s reporting, because I would assume that the MSM will simply be nauseating. Can anyone let me know if the prosecutors have managed to even sniff at a murder charge? Don’t they have to at least prove that Officer Chauvin attempted to cause injury for a murder charge?

    1. Reason is part of the MSM.

    2. You can do better

      1. Any suggestions? I also look through WSJ and Reuters. Haven’t seen anything in those sources about the prosecutors getting at Officer Chauvin’s intent, either.

  20. Jesus fucking Christ the comments here are an utter cesspool. There is no reasonable defense of what Chauvin did.

    1. Chauvin forced him to OD on fentanyl?

    2. Jesus fucking Christ the comments here are an utter cesspool.

      First time?

      There is no reasonable defense of what Chauvin did.

      Morally? Maybe not.
      Legally? There absolutely is. Whether or not the jury finds that defense reasonable for an acquittal is the whole point.

    3. There is no reasonable defense of what Chauvin did.

      That is not the Chauvin defense’s objective. Their goals are to make sure the members of the jury give him the presumption of innocence and to prevent the state from meeting its burden of proof.

  21. Once again a great summation from Jacob. Always love your insights and your way of presenting what can be a very confusing subject matter.
    Geetanjali Gurgaon

  22. Does the position of the knee matter? Yet to be determined. At this point we have only heard the prosecutions case and the hints of the how the defense will argue. In the end, if it matters will depend on the jury and how they view it.

  23. I personally believe Chauvin went beyond what was necessary for restraint, BUT, having been in similar circumstances, the witness from L.A. is ridiculous in proclaiming the charges have anything to do with the use of force. It’s the attitude of the person being arrested that dictates how and what type force is used, and anyone who has had to restrain someone on drugs knows how unpredictable they are, and that their strength can be heightened, especially with ‘speed’.

  24. Nope, doesn’t matter. He could have issued Floyd a citation and walked away.

    1. By the time Chauvin arrived on the scene, Floyd was already in a cop car, actively fighting police, and an ambulance had been called. He had also swallowed a large amount of drugs inside the car (as evidenced by his toxicology as well as a “speedball” in the car with his DNA on it) and if the defense’s theory was correct, was in the middle of a fatal overdose.

      The prosecution’s own expert said that at that point, he would have been justified in using his taser.

Comments are closed.