engine leaves. anything after that is not really relevant. to some extent it is cumulative as the state has said. mr. nelson, you may call your next witness. >> your honor, at this time the defense calls barry brad.

>> do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> if you would. >> thank you. >> and if you could begin, let's make sure the microphone is pointed towards you. there you go. if you could begin by giving us your full name, spelling each of your names. >> barry vance broad. barry. vance. brodd. >> mr. nelson? >> thank you very much. good afternoon, mr. brodd. >> good afternoon. >> are you currently employed? >> i am. >> and where are you so employed? >> self-employed as i own a consulting company bvb and

associates. >> what areas do you consult in? >> police practices and use of force. >> all right. now, did you have a career as a police officer prior to starting your company? >> i did. >> can you, for the jury, please describe generally your education that you received in order to become a police officer? >> so i have a bachelor's degree in law enforcement from george mason university, which is in fairfax, virginia. i have a california community college teaching credential from san francisco state university. and i'm a graduate of the labor management relations program at university of california at davis. >> and did you serve as a licensed police officer in various capacities? >> i did. >> when did you start your law enforcement career? >> so when i graduated college i was a seasonal police officer in ocean city, maryland. then i was a deputy sheriff for six months with the -- county sheriff's office in arlington,

virginia, assigned to the custody division. and i was hired by the united states park police, which is a law enforcement branch of the department of interior. >> is that a federal law enforcement agency? >> that is a federal law enforcement agency. and i started my career with the park police in washington d.c. and then i was transferred to san francisco field office in 1977. then i went on loan to an undercover drug task force in marin county, california. and then i went to santa rosa police department in 1982. >> and how long were you with the santa rosa police department? >> 22 years. i have 29 years total law enforcement experience. >> in your capacity as a police officer, do you have any specialized training or experience? >> i did. >> and what is that? >> so, i had special assignments as with the park police i was certified by the fbi as a defensive tactics instructor in 1978. i started teaching in the

santareaoesa public safety training. and i also taught law enforcement rangers throughout the western region of the national park service. >> can you explain what defensive tactics is, generally? >> so, when you look at the topic of use of force, that can include handcuffing, hands-on techniques, baton techniques, handcuffing, pain compliance, and under the use of force, umbrella is also firearms. i focused almost entirely on the defensive tactics portion of use of force. >> and so you testified that you taught defensive tactics. you called it the, i believe the regional training center? >> it is a regional academy, but the official name is the santa rosa public safety training center. >> can you describe what that is? >> so, recruit police officer would attend the training center for their california p.o.s.t.

basic academy certification. national park rangers also attended that academy. corrections officers attend that academy. probation officers. and there's also an ems component, firefighters go to that academy. and it also services in-service training. >> in-service is training for licensed officers? >> yes. >> to meet their continuing education credits? >> yes. >> and how long did you teach there? >> 35 years. >> in the use of force always? >> yes. in addition to other topics. >> what were the other topics that you trained? >> weapons laws, interview and interrogation techniques, collision scene, preservation, verbal judo, tactical communication skills, were some of the others. >> what's verbal judo? >> so, it is actually dr. george

thompson developed the program shortly after the rodney king incident, thinking that police officers needed better tools to communicate with people. so, verbal judo created an outline on how an officer who would make a traffic stop could use verbal skills to overcome a person's potential noncompliance. >> did you also teach in crowd control, crowd management type issues? >> i did. so one of the topics i taught at the training center was defensive tactics, crowd control, chemical agent, impact weapons, and a variety of other topics that i just discussed earlier. >> okay. and so you did that for 35 years while you were still actively a peace officer? >> i taught while i was a police officer, and then when i retired in 2004 i continued teaching in the training center for another nine years. >> all right.

>> do you have any -- have you received any certifications throughout the course of your career? >> several. >> can you describe for the jury some of the certifications that you've held? >> so i have a p.o.s.t. basic intermediate and advanced certificates. and then as far as instructor certifications, i was certified by the fbi as a defensive tactics instructor. i was certified by the california peace officer standards and training commission as a defensive tactics instructor. and through california p.o.s.t. i was also an impact weapon instructor, chemical agent instructor, less lethal munition instructor, verbal judo instructor, pepper spray instructor, to name, i can't remember them all. >> okay. do you -- so, can you describe the nature of your private practice, so to speak, in terms of the use of force? >> i take cases from plaintiffs

and defendants and civil cases and criminal cases. i do use of force consulting for a variety of public defenders offices in california. and i was also a member -- i was a use of force consultant for the san francisco district attorney's office. >> have you been involved in prior cases to review the uses of force? >> i have had a little bit over 140 cases that i was actively involved in. >> have you provided testimony in courts throughout the united states? >> i have. >> or other arbitrative type civil hearings? >> yes. >> can you tell me the number of times that you've testified in either civil or criminal cases? >> so, since 2016, i've testified in court, either criminal or civil, both state and federal ten times. >> and in terms of other types of hearings, depositions, things

of that nature, do you testify there as well? >> yes. >> can you describe some of the states where you have previously testified? >> illinois, california, hawaii, and that's about it. >> have you ever been hired on a case here in minnesota? >> yes. >> and who hired you in that particular case? >> minneapolis city attorney's office. >> you're being paid for your services, correct? >> yes. >> can you tell the jury your hourly rate and the number of hours you've spent on this case? >> i've spent roughly 60 hours. i make $350 an hour for courtroom appearances and $275 an hour for case reviews. >> and how much have you -- what's the total about you've earned so far? >> on this case $11,400. >> now, simply because you are

being paid, does that mean you are going to always going to sign with that party? >> no. >> in your career have you ever been retained by someone and found their use of force to be improper? >> several times. >> how is it that you became involved in this particular case? >> when this incident first occurred, i reached out to the city attorney's office here in minneapolis, told them that i had some -- >> objection, hearsay. >> overruled. >> i had some exposure to the george floyd incident, and i was offering my services to the minneapolis city attorney's office. >> and you were ultimately not retained by the city attorney's office or the state, correct? >> that's correct. >> you then were retained by my office? >> yes. >> when you were retained, were you provided with a scope of

your engagement? >> i was. >> could you explain for the jury the scope of your engagement in this particular -- >> you asked me to analyze the actions of derek chauvin and give opinions regarding his conduct and actions towards mr. floyd. >> can you describe the materials that you reviewed in order to analyze this case? >> so, i received thousands of pages of materials, but i've learned through my experience that i don't need to review materials that really don't have anything to do with the officer or the officer's policies or the use of force policies. so i've pretty much focused my review on the videos, the snap shots of the body born cameras that the officers were wearing, minneapolis statements, the use of force policies, and training records. >> so when you say there were some materials that were not

relevant to your analysis, can you just kind of give a general example of what that would be? >> patrol responsibilities, vehicle maintenance responsibilities, things of that nature. >> anything pertaining directly to your analysis in this case you did review? >> i did review. >> now, based upon your training and experience and your expertise in the use of force matter, your review of the materials that have been provided to you, have you formed opinions in this particular case to a reasonable degree of professional certainty? >> i have. >> and can you just briefly overview your opinions in this particular case? >> i felt that derek chauvin was justified, was acting with objective reasonableness following minneapolis police department policy and current standards of law enforcement and his interactions with mr. floyd.

>> we've heard a lot over the last couple of weeks about the graham versus connor factors. are you familiar with the graham versus connor factors? >> i am. >> and can you just very briefly provide your definition and your -- how you look at those facts? >> so, in my 35 years of teaching, it's not just dealing with tactics, but it's dealing with providing an officer the mindset that what they need to justify to use various tactics that they were trained in. and the standard of graham versus connor is, you know, what would a reasonable officer have done in a similar set of circumstances that you're doing. >> now, the graham versus connor factor, the first one is the severity of the crime at issue, correct? >> yes. >> how do you analyze that graham versus connor factor? >> so, i know in my experience, and the experience of officers

that i've been in contact with is that the higher risk an arrest may be, like say an armed bank robber. an armed bank robber, you would pull your gun, order him to the ground to take them into custody. you know they're a danger, you know they're a threat level right off the bat. whereas, i can't imagine how many times i've been exposed to personally or have seen other officers dealing with a simple thing as a traffic stop or a j-walking violation or some minor offense, and they end up in a fight for their life just because of the conduct of the individual they're contacting. >> so in terms of the severity of issue, is it always what was the initial response in your -- or is it something that evolves over time? >> well, the initial response of course is important, but it's really how the person you're

interacting with as a law enforcement officer responds to you. >> and does that echo into the second graham factor? >> it does. >> and can you just explain the imminent threat factor? >> so imminent is, from a police officer's standpoint, you don't have to wait for it to happen. you just have to have a reasonable fear that somebody's either going to strike you, stab you, shoot you. so, you try to plan to deal with the imminent threat, and then you adjust your tactics accordingly based upon how the suspect is reacting to you. >> and the third graham factor is whether the suspect is actively resisting or attempting to evade, correct? >> that's correct. >> and can you explain that to the jury? >> so, again, the level of resistance is commensurate with how they resist you justifies an officer to use a variety of tools on their tool belt. so if a suspect is resisting

your efforts to handcuff them and they spin away and try to punch you, an officer doesn't have to go fist on fist with them. the officer's allowed to escalate to use an impact weapon, taser, pepper spray, or other tools. >> now, in terms of, again, the analysis of graham versus connor, are there other factors or components of that analysis that are relevant? >> yes. >> can you explain some of those? >> so as you're reviewing an incident such as this, you have to try to see it through the eyes of the officers on the scene. you know, what factors were they dealing with, what circumstances, what was the suspect doing, what were onlookers doing? were there environmental hazards? and then try to put yourself in the officers' shoes to see the decisions they make, were they objectively reasonable or not. >> so you would agree with the other people who've testified in this case that the standard

involves objective reasonableness? >> yes, i do. >> based on the totality of facts and circumstances of this case? >> that were present to the officer at the time. >> and a view from a reasonable police officer on the scene? >> yes. >> and what about hindsight? >> so, it's easier to sit and judge in an office on an officer's conduct. it's more of a challenge to, again, put yourself in the officer's shoes to try to make an evaluation through what they're feeling, what they're sensing, the fear they have, and then make a determination. >> and does that prohibit or preclude a review of a police officer's conduct? >> no, not a review, no. >> now, when you approach a use of force case such as this, do you apply a particular methodology in order to analyze the graham versus connor factors? >> i do. >> and can you explain for the

jury the methodology that you've used in your previous cases or in your career? >> so it's a pretty simple review. so i look at when the officer contacted the individual, did the officer have legal authority for a detention? so let's talk about a traffic stop. if somebody runs a stop sign, police officer has the right to detain you with a citation. you as the person running the stop sign doesn't have the right to resist the officer. so, anything that would evolve from a lawful detention, the officer has certain rights to continue the investigation. now, a detention can -- so detention you need reasonable suspicion for. to make an arrest you need probable cause. so, when i'm looking at use of force cases i want to make sure that the officer had a lawful right to detain or probable cause to arrest.

>> and in terms of the lawful right to detain, you used the term -- what was that term, reasonable suspicion? >> reasonable suspicion to detain. >> and what constitutes, generally, reasonable suspicion to detain? >> that you see an infraction or a misdemeanor or a felony, and the person that you're going to detain, you have a reasonable suspicion that they've committed an infraction or another crime. >> and in terms of probable cause to arrest, how would you define that? >> it's pretty much as the statement says that the person probably committed the crime. and so officers, when they make an arrest, they base it on probable cause. >> so in terms of putting a suspect in handcuffs, is that automatically an arrest? >> no. >> can it be a detention? >> it could be a detention. >> so, the first -- just to make

sure i understand your testimony, your first prong of your analysis is to determine whether the officer had justification to detain the suspect, correct? >> yes. >> what's the second part of your analysis? >> now, how does the suspect respond to the officer? if it's an arrest situation and the officer tells the suspect to turn around, put your hands behind your back or behind your head and the suspect complies and the officer handcuffs the suspect, that's good. if the suspect doesn't comply and they begin to resist, then i look at what level of the resistance did the suspect display to the officer and then what did the officer do to overcome that resistance? >> now, let's talk briefly in the second prong about the different types of resistance that a suspect could use. can you describe the levels of resistance that you look for? >> so, no resistance would be compliance. that's always the goal.

the next level would be passive resistance where a suspect -- you tell the suspect to turn around, put their hands behind their back and they don't. they're not resisting you, they're just being physically noncompliant, yet, without any type of physical strength or any type of maneuvers that they may try to do to prevent you from handcuffing them. so the next level would be active resistance. so i go to put you into a handcuffing position, and you pull your hands away or you struggle with me. so that's active resistance where they're using energy to prevent an officer from accomplishing their goal. and then now that same suspect, while in a handcuff, pulls away from me and they swing at me. so that's active aggression. and all those cues are allowing me to escalate up the ladder of force options i have available to me. >> now in terms of your

experience in various jurisdictions, do use of force policies differ from city to city, state to state? >> they differ slightly, usually deadly force policies are fairly consistent. some agencies have more liberal use of force policies than others. some agencies now are starting to adopt policies that you can't shoot at a moving vehicle if the only weapon is a vehicle itself. so there is a little bit of a learning curve there for agencies. >> so, in terms of your, again, analysis, the first prong being whether there was a justification for the detention, the second prong being the level of resistance exhibited by the suspect, correct? >> yes. >> and what's the third prong? >> what the officer did to overcome that resistance. so, if somebody pulls away from

you and they're actively resisting, does the officer pull out their baton and strike them in the head? that to me would be excessive. so, was the officer's use of force proportionate to the level of resistance demonstrated by the suspect? >> objectively reasonable, correct? >> yes. >> so, in terms of your three-part analysis, did you apply that analysis to this case? >> i did. >> in your opinion, was this a use of deadly force? >> it was not. >> can you explain that? >> so, i'll give you an example that i used to teach my academy classes. officers respond to a domestic violence situation, and the suspect is still there, and he fights with -- excuse me, he fights with the officers, and the officers are justified in using a taser to overcome this person's noncompliance. they tase the individual, and the individual falls to the

ground, strikes their head and dies. so that's an incident of deadly force. that's an incident of accidental death. in my review i would look to see whether the suspect's resistance to justify the use of the taser was objectively reasonable. >> can you describe what you would call control techniques? >> so, control techniques are me putting my hands on you. and it could be, you know, escort position where i put my hand above your elbow, and my hand on your risk. it could be pain compliance techniques which means i'm doing some joint manipulation on various parts of your body. and if you're doing what i'm asking you to do, it doesn't hurt. if you don't do what i'm asking you to do, i can motivate your

compliance through pain compliance, stimulating you with pain. >> now, in terms of your analysis of any case, i think you described this a little bit. but did you refer to kind of an increase level of force to overcome the resistance? how would you describe that? >> police terminology is called one-upman ship. police officers don't have to fight fair. they're allowed to overcome your resistance by going up a level or resorting to a different force option to let them accomplish the goal of getting you to comply. >> are officers also required to de-escalate in certain circumstances? >> yes. >> and can you describe the process of moving up or down that use of force? >> it's always in response to what a suspect is doing. so if they're fighting, you're fighting back, you're trying to control them. once they're controlled, you

reduce your justified levels of force. yet, you're still in control of the person. anybody you take into custody you have to maintain control of. >> again, in terms of the use of force, what relevance does possible drug influence have in an analysis? >> it has quite a large impact, in my opinion. >> how so? >> well, because people under the influence of drugs may not be hearing what you're trying to ask them to do. they may not understand. they may have erratic behavior. they may have total -- they don't feel pain, so techniques you would normally use to make somebody comply, they're not feeling. they may have superhuman strength or they may have an ability to go from compliance to extreme noncompliance in a

heartbeat. >> do you train officers to keep drug influenced suspects handcuffed? >> i do. >> why? >> so, there's been many instances where handcuffs were removed from a drug influenced suspect, and as soon as they were removed or some type of first aid measures started to be applied, the person is right back to fighting you and you're in a fight for your life. so, i've trained and i have been trained that when you're dealing with drug-influenced persons, they stay handcuffed until they're taken to a medical facility, if that's what the case may be, and they're put in soft restraints on a gurney so they could be treated. >> can you describe the concept of situational awareness? >> yes. i kind of break it down that -- most people's heads should be on and you hear somebody running up behind you, your mind thoughts

shouldn't be, well, i wonder if they're going to tackle me, if they're going to rob me. no, head on a swivel which means you're cognisant of your awareness, see things that may be a threat or hazard to you, plan for them, and especially as a police officer, a police officer in uniform stands for certain things. unfortunately, criminals don't wear uniforms, so officers don't have the luxury of being able to look at somebody and automatically determining if they're going to be a threat or a risk to them or not. >> does concepts of situational awareness come into or factor into your analysis? >> it does. >> how so? >> the so, what other threats are present besides the person that we're dealing with? other environmental hazards. is there traffic going by on the street? are there onlookers? are there more people starting to focus on your arrest versus just walking down the sidewalk?

the officer's exhaustion level. you know, what are other officers doing? things of that nature. >> is an officer entitled to rely on information he or she receives from dispatch in formulating whether they're going to use force? >> in justifying force, i would say no. in preparing to deal with the situation you're being sent to by dispatch, then i would say yes. >> how does that differ? >> so, an officer has to take into account what they see on the scene. dispatchers do the best jobs they can, but they're usually only getting information over the telephone. and the information may be inaccurate, it may be false, it may be exaggerated. so it's up to the officer on the street to determine what is the best course of action. >> have you reviewed officer chauvin's uses of force in this particular case taking into

consideration your analysis as well as some of the concepts we've talked about? >> i have. >> and let's talk about mr. chauvin's uses of force. where would you say the first use of force that mr. chauvin engaged in occurred? >> when he joined officer keung and lane trying to put mr. floyd in the backseat of a patrol car. >> and in your view of that use of force, what is your perspective on that? >> that mr. floyd's level of resistance was -- it was objectively reasonable for the officers to use the techniques that they were doing. i felt that level of existence exhibited by mr. floyd justified the officers in higher use of force that they chose not to select. >> and would that be -- if an officer chooses not to use a higher level of force, is that an element of de-escalation?

>> objection, leading. >> rephrase. >> how does an officer's decision to use less force factor into an analysis of de-escalation techniques? >> so, an officer sees an incident, feels they have the justification to use these tools that deal with the incident, which is due to the personality or the personal makeup of the officer, they chose not to, they try to expire a lesser technique to see if it'll work, and then if it doesn't work then they escalate. >> now, you've watched -- you testified you've watched the videos in this case? >> yes. >> does that include the body worn cameras of the minneapolis police officers involved? >> it did. >> did it include various bystander videos? >> yes. >> and surveillance videos from area stores? >> yes.

>> and from your perspective, just, generally, what are some of the limitations of camera analysis? >> objection, lacks foundation. >> overruled. >> so, body camera shows what the camera is pointing at. it doesn't see what an officer may see in their peripheral vision. doesn't show what an officer is actually feeling through their hands or sensing through their levels of awareness, and then low light situations a body cam's shutter response to lighting situations quicker than the human eye -- >> objection -- >> overruled. >> your last statement? >> about the shutter release on the body cam, as it adjusts quicker to lighting situations than the human eye does. >> now, so in terms of the initial uses of force, the

officers' efforts to get mr. floyd into the car, you felt that they were objectively reasonable? >> i did. >> did the use of force then continue after mr. floyd was restrained on the ground? >> i don't consider a -- control as a use of force. >> let's back up just a second. the removal or mr. floyd's getting out of the vehicle, however that was, does that constitute a use of force? >> um, the manhandling or the three officers taken mr. floyd out of the car and placing him on the ground, yes, that's a use of force. >> was it justified or objectively reasonable in this particular case according to your opinion? >> yes. >> so when they brought mr. floyd to the ground, are you saying you don't consider that to be a use of force? >> up to that point, it was still use of force, yes.

>> once mr. floyd is on the ground, in your opinion, does there continue to be some level of resistance by mr. floyd? >> yes. >> how would you describe that? >> active resistance, he was still struggling against the efforts of the officers. and i saw on one of the body cam videos that mr. floyd appeared to kick at officer lane. dealing with high-risk suspect it's safer for you, the officer and the suspect, to put him on the ground in a prone position, face down, for a variety of reasons. it makes the suspect's mobility diminished. they can't get up and run as

quick t takes away some of the use of their hands, so they can't grab you without turning their body, which would give an officer time to react. it limits what they can do with their feet. they can still kick but don't have as much mobility or power as they would have if this were standing. >> mr. floyd was handcuffed at this point? >> yes. >> does the fact that mr. floyd was handcuffed somehow come into the analysis as to whether or not they put him into a prone position? >> no. a resister, handcuffed or not, should go to the ground in a prone position. >> can you explain what you mean by a prone control position? >> where the suspect handcuffed, handcuffed are behind the back, placed on their stomach and their chest and officers are in a position to apply body weight

to keep the suspect on the ground and to keep them further immobilized. >> would it be common practice in that situation to employ an m.i.t. or hobble restraint? >> you could. >> what would be the factors to determine if an officer should employ such a technique? >> can the officer control the person's legs? does the person need their legs controlled? in this situation, they did. can they be successful? >> in terms of -- you're familiar officers in this case considered use of the m.i.t.? >> they did. >> and they ultimately decided against it, correct?

>> that's correct. >> how does that factor into -- or the decision to not employ the mrt factor into the analysis? >> that it's one of those situations where they were justified in the maximum restraint and chose not to. so why they had that decision making, i'm not sure. maybe mr. floyd had made comments about being claustrophobic. if you do leg restrain someone that is claustrophobic, it can create that reaction. what i've read in the materials is that there's a firestation literally seconds, if not a minute to 1 1/2 minutes away. if you have somebody under control in need of medical attention and ems who had

training and commitment, that would be relevant to me. let's stabilize the situation and wait for the professionals to show up. >> based on a reasonable police officer standard, is that a factor that comes into analysi. >> potential erratic behavior going from compliant to noncompliant, not feeling any pain, having superhuman strength

and it's just safer for the officer and the suspect to keep them in that prone control. >> why would it be safer for the suspect to keep them in that prone control? >> if they were to get up and run, handcuffed, trip and fall, sustain facial injuries, other injuries on the ground. their mobility is reduced. their ability to move is reduced and ability to hurt themselves is reduced. >> what if they became sick, for example? >> prone control, instead of having someone lay on their back where they could aspirate or vomit, prone control, if they vomit it won't go down their throat. >> how do officers take into account an analysis of words versus conduct? >> so you hear what the suspect

is saying. so if i want mr. floyd to get in the back of the car and he's saying, i will, i will, i will, but he's not, and i'm trying to force him in, he says i will, i will, but he's not, then his actions are telling me he's not getting in the car, regardless of what he's saying. >> what about as mr. floyd was going into the car and there was this act of aggression, as you've defined it, and mr. floyd at that point was saying he couldn't breathe? but he continued to say that later. >> i have advanced first aid. i certainly don't have medical degrees. i was trained to the reasonable assumption if somebody is "i'm choking, i'm choking," you're not choking, because you can

breathe. if somebody is shouting, to me, the layperson they can breathe. >> is that a common misunderstanding within the policing community? >> i believe it is, yes. >> objection. lack of foundation. >> overruled. >> in terms of a reasonable police officer standard, a police officer who has used force, can they use that as prolonged detention or prone control on a suspect? >> if the officer was justified in using the prone control and now the suspect is on the ground in a prone control the maintaining of a prone control is not a use of force. >> why? >> because that's a control technique. it doesn't hurt.

you've put them in a position where it's safe for them, the suspect, and safe for you, the officer. >> you're familiar with the term asphyxia, correct? >> i am. >> can you describe for the jury what you've trained and have been trained that are the dangers for asphyxia? >> a target person for asphyxia would be someone who is very obese. you take that obese person and handcuff them behind their back, really pulling their shoulders back, constricting their rib cage and if you put them face down on the ground, that would be the training model for somebody who could be prone to positional asphyxia. and initially the training in leg restraints, you used to hobble a person's ankles, tie

the ankles to the handcuffs and then put the person face down and that would create even more pressure on a person's sternum and rib cage and reduce their ability to breathe. so that technique was modified to address the positional asphyxia issues. >> you would agree that the minneapolis police department trains officers to place people in a recovery position, correct? >> yes. >> you would agree that that is based out of concerns of positional asphyxia, agreed? >> yes. >> are there situations where a reasonable police officer would not put a person in the prone position into the recovery position? >> yes. >> can you describe what those might be? >> in this situation, there was space limitations. mr. floyd was butted up against the patrol car. traffic was driving down the

street. there were crowd issues. mr. floyd was somewhat resisting. i think those are relatively valid reasons to keep him in the prone. >> now, in terms of your train ing that you have been trained, how in law enforcement is a crowd defined? >> a crowd by definition isn't unlawful. the law enforcement definition is two or more people constitute a crowd. because it's not unlawful, it doesn't mean it doesn't become a

consideration for the officers. >> can you explain how you think the crowd or this group of people that have gathered around and were watching affected the officers? >> yes, the officers were dealing with mr. floyd, but there's also other factors for them to consider. in this case, the crowd started to grow in size, started to become more vocal. so now officers are always trained to deal with what threat is the biggest threat, the suspect on the ground in front of me in handcuffs, or the unknown threat posed by the crowd that could go from verbal to trying to interfere with my arrest process in a matter of seconds? >> did you factor that in to your analysis of this case?

>> i did. >> how so? >> we see officer chauvin's focus started to move from mr. floyd to the crowd, to one point that mr. chauvin felt threatened enough he withdrew his pepper spray canister and gave verbal commands to the crowd to stay back. now he's dealing with a bigger threat. >> just to wrap up, could you explain what you found in this case? >> following his training, current practices and policing and were objectively reasonable. >> thank you. i have no further questions.