Skip to main content

tv   Deadline White House  MSNBC  April 1, 2021 1:00pm-3:00pm PDT

1:00 pm
hi, everyone. it is 4:00 in the new york. with're continuing the monitor the murder trial of derek chauvin and bring you updates and dramatic moments that unfold in the courtroom when they happen but we begin with the reckoning over voting rights intensifying across the country and now inching into the world of sports. president biden making baseball's 2021 opening day about a whole lot more than a return for america's pasttime. president biden last night
1:01 pm
throwing his support behind moving the 2021 all-star game out of atlanta in protest of georgia's voter suppression laws ma ka raiding as election security laws in a state where there was no widespread voter fraud. >> i think today's professional athletes are acting incredibly responsibly. i would strongly support them doing that. people look to them. they're leaders. look at what's happened with the nba, as well. look at what's happened across the board. the very people who are victimized the most are the people who are the leaders in these various sports. and it's just not right. this is jim crow on steroids what they're doing in georgia. and 40 other states. imagine passing a law saying you cannot provide water or food for someone standing in line to vote? can't do that? come on. or you're going to close a
1:02 pm
polling place at 5:00 when working people just get off? this is about keeping ordinary folk that is grew up with from being able to vote. >> major league baseball didn't make a decision yet but the dam appears to be breaking with corporations who realize that laws that function as voter suppression may not be commercial like from "the new york times," quote, delta air lines, georgia's largest employer made general statements. last week and declined to take a position on the legislation. that muted response drew fierce criticism as well as protests at the atlanta airport and calls for a boycott but wednesday delta's chief executive made a stark reversal. i need to make it clear that the final bill is unacceptable and does not match delta's values. he wrote that in an internal memo reviewed by "the new york times." coca-cola another of georgia's largest companies which had also declined to take a position on the legislation before it
1:03 pm
passed, made a very similarly worded statement. i want to be chris call clear. the coca-cola company does not support this legislation, and it makes it harder for people to vote. how's that for an about-face? we'll take it. it follows the story we reported on yesterday in this hour about black ceos calling on corporations to fight laws across the country. also from "new york times," quote, the campaign appear to be the first time that so many powerful black executives organized to call out the peers for failing to stand up for racial justice. we here are waiting and watching for white ceos organizing or joining the black counterparts. we'll break into the coverage if any major moves on that front happens but the fight will be ferocious. there's data on laws to make it harder to vote and the new data
1:04 pm
is daunting. nbc news reports today on that new analysis out from the brennan center for justice, lawmakers introduced 108 restrictive voting bills in less than 5 weeks this spring. by march 24, state lawmakers had introduced 361 restrictive election bills in 47 state legislatures, at least 55 restrictive bills in 24 states are advancing through state legislatures. this is it. i said it yesterday. this is the gop strategy. if you can't beat the candidate block the voters. block minority voters access to the ballot box, access to mail-in ballots, deny them same-day registration. keep in mind the only person that we know of under criminal investigation for trying to steal votes, donald trump. the race against time over laws designed to suppress the vote is
1:05 pm
where we start today with some of the most favorite reporters and friends. jason johnson is back from morgan state university and a contributor to the greo and adrian haynes from 319 and mike barnacle is here. did you president biden was going to go on espn and throw his weight behind what appears to be the players' union representative who's the farthest out front on suggesting that the all-star game should move? >> i did not know he was going to do it. i knew that he felt that way. and he finally basically said here's the deal, folks, and articulated his feeling about it and it makes sense because, after all, a huge percentage of the fan base in major league baseball are people of color. it's an enormously diverse sport and game. and you can't very well own a
1:06 pm
team or conduct an all-star game when you're basically saying, play ball, but by the way, when the baseball season is over and you stand in line to vote, we don't care whether you can vote or not. we don't care about you as individuals but the collective money making machine that we put on the field. so yeah. i think it's great that he is articulated the need for atlanta to be stripped of the game and what you just mentioned is interesting in all the different state legislature just the clear-cut adjective is republican legislature. they are afraid of the voters, the changing face of america. >> i want to push on this. the all-star game is within game in one city on one day. and what we laid out as you said is 47 state legislatures
1:07 pm
contemplating 108 bill just there's a high bar for sports to engage politically but do you think that will pressure baseball and basketball's already pretty involved but other teams and other states to do more? >> yeah. you got to separate the nba. the nba is really with the culture. they are in the 21st century. they are of 2021. national football league? we have seen the arduous pain that ownership went through when a couple of players began kneeling on the sidelines several years ago and now trying to catch up. major league baseball is trying to catch up to both sports and it is -- as you probably know, most of the ownership groups and the national football league as well as the national basketball association and major league baseball, made up of largely fairly conservative republican white people.
1:08 pm
they're a little late to the game sort to speak. no pun intended but pun will work here. they're late to the game of life. >> erin hayes, i saw that interview on espn, and just thought it was an important thread. this idea of boycotts and economic punishments for states and businesses is controversial. and i know some democrats are uncomfortable with it but in my view, this is where we are. these are the stakes and i think that delta and coca-cola are late to the debate. the bill passed. where do you see the president's comments moving the conversation in and around atlanta and georgia? >> you know, a few things. one, this is not a new dynamic in atlanta. atlanta is the home of the late hank aaron who we lost in january who if this track record is any indication would have had something to say about this voting law and it's not only the process it went through in the
1:09 pm
legislature but also the passage. he would have spoken out against that. so baseball is the sport where jackie robinson broke the color barrier. baseball is proud of that. atlanta is proud of being the city too busy to hate and there is a real question here as to whether or not the city is going to live up to that moniker now. companies like delta and coca-cola have long been part of what has made -- given atlanta that reputation, that made atlanta and georgia a place that's been able to point to southern neighbors and say we are not south carolina, we are not alabama. we are not mississippi. and now i think the confluence of atlanta and baseball given their kind of -- what they hold -- both of them holding themselves out to be markers of racial progress that confluence has a potential to be very powerful. you talked about this being one game in one day but i think it has a potential or at least i
1:10 pm
know a lot of folks who would want voter suppression off the table going forward has a potential to send a signal to cities and states that elections and these choices do have consequences. >> i should say i didn't mean to down play the significance but a huge deal and that's why we start here. i guess the question, jason, and then what? it isn't just the fight in georgia. it is a fight in 47 states as of today, against 108 bills racing, not plodding, but racing through largely republican-led legislatures. i want to play bishop reginald jackson's sound from yesterday and then getting specific of what companies need to do. if this is now a moment of choosing. let me play that and talk about this on the other side. >> we cannot support companies who support or remain silent about legislation that is based on a lie, that seeks to suppress
1:11 pm
our vote, is racist, and seeks to turn back time to jim crow. there is no way that these companies did not know that this legislation was based on a lie. i am pleased with their public comments. let me also say that it is a little too late. they had an opportunity to speak out against this legislation sometime ago. and i cannot help but believe that it was not until we talked about a boycott that they said we have to do something. >> that was from this morning and he is absolutely right. we have been looking for comments from the companies and not until i believe stacey abrams two weeks ago raised the spector of pressure on georgia companies that they issued the almost identically worded
1:12 pm
statements yesterday. >> right. and here's the thing. there's also history of this. right? we have the faye mousse story of coca-cola putting pressure on white business people in the 1960s because they were going to boycott martin luther king getting the nobel peace prize in the city. i spoke to la tasha brown and did an interview about this on the podcast. every single bit of pressure to be focused on georgia because symbolically that does affect other places. this state has become ground zero for the issues. if big businesses like delta and coca-cola said you need to stop this year ere states would be nervous. they can pull back pledge money, ask republican candidates in particular or republican sitting officials we want the $5,000, the $10,000 back. athletes can also get involved of the teams.
1:13 pm
ask kelly loeffler if teams make a difference. if georgia wants to make a law saying you can't give people water in line waiting to vote i would love to see matt ryan, lebron james in a gatorade truck. there's things that can be done and i think it spreads if these laws are pushed back. >> let's be clear about why all eyes are on sports and corporate america. because the republican party is a failed state. the republican party does not believe in access to voting rights. they're taking a lie that led to a deadly insurrection and using that lie to roll back access to the polls and i'm old enough to remember when republicans liked people to mail in the ballots. that's not today's republican party but i want to go through where corporate america is today. this is a list of companys that have called for action against
1:14 pm
voting restrictions in the wake of the georgia bill. apple. b of m. merck. viacom. jpmorgan chase. google. coca-cola. tim keke's statement from apple, the right to vote is fundamental in a democracy. black people in particular have to march and struggle and give their lives to defend that right. apple believes it ought to be easier than ever for every eligible citizen to exercise the right to vote. why doesn't big business in america get behind a push in the opposite direction? that's to say, not just defending these laws but why not have corporate america push for voting on the phones? >> you know, that's a very good question. but the root of it, all of it, lies in something that began in
1:15 pm
the summer and fall of 2016 and thrived through the following four years of the election of the former guy and that's the roots of fear he injected into our politics and culture. so now corporate america is the same as an average citizen in a sense. they have a fear of the backlash against a statement they might make. >> yeah. >> they have a fear of losing profits as many people -- look what's happened to this country. we have people who have a fear of masks. a fear of vaccines. a fear of the other. all the time. that has thrived, thrived in this nation over the last four years. and as much attention as we pay to it we don't pay enough attention to it. >> say more. >> i mean, you can see it. you can see it in the normal
1:16 pm
course of conversations that people have. people are afraid to say things to someone they barely know for fear that there'll be a backlash against them. that's an individual basis. but it's also a thriving market of fear that goes from state to state to state. you know? we could cut down on the virus if you'd wear the mask. wear the mask. no, no, no, i'm not wearing a mask. because you are afraid that your peers might say something to you. the people you play cards with on a friday night that voted for trump or maybe didn't vote for trump but liked the way he talked, the liked the way he verbalized their fear and the change in america we're all a part of. never underestimate the fear of change in this country. we're late to get to it. it's tough for many people to handle but a fact of life in 2022 as a fact of life in 1902 and 1922 when immigrants started
1:17 pm
to arrive on the shores hand over fist. my parents were imgrants. there was a fear of their parents when they arrived here as irish-catholic and came from a different country and practiced a different religion so fast forward 110 years, 115 years and america is still so susceptible to this fear and it's predominantly prevalent among people who wear skin like i wear today. >> so, jason, i think what mike just did was strip this down to the real world. and what's happening in the real world is that that fear is driving support for bills like this. it's letting the companies without the scrutiny and the spotlight stay silent until days and days and days of scrutiny forces them to speak up and speak out and land on the right side. but i guess my question is, it is pervasive. i'd add vaccine hesitancy. fear of whatever.
1:18 pm
i don't know what that -- i think the right wing legend goes bill gates got their -- i don't know what it is. there's fear of vaccine, so prevalent. how does a win against this georgia voter suppression law, this law that will have the effect to suppress the vote, how does that fuel and animate the push against fear? >> i don't know if it does because the fear is always unfounded. the fear is -- some part of racism is fear but other parts are just you feel like you're better than everybody else. the reason that the white people here before didn't like the irish white people that came over later is because they thought they were better. they didn't like the italians because they thought they were better and asian-american don't like other -- latinos, all this racism is sometimes based on fear or superiority. when people are operating rather from fear or a seasons of
1:19 pm
superiority, the only thing you can do is beat them. i can't walk down the street no matter how charming and considerate may be i can't change a bigot's opinion of me. all i can do is avoid that person or keep them from harming me and people that look like me so stopping this bill or convincing people if stacy abram is your governor she won't take your gun and enslave white people and won't change anybody in aqua non. rather than changing people we have to move past them. we have to move past them just like sexists and bigots and homo phobes. >> errin, what happens next in georgia? >> i think what i would say is that, yes, what you also have is that the fear of speaking out, the fear of doing something and getting involved has started to
1:20 pm
become overtaken by the fear of not speaking out, not doing something. you see athletes that didn't think they needed to weigh in on these issues and they are. you have athletes focusing on voter suppression and president biden asking the country, is this who we are and who we want to be as a country? many white americans saying, no, this is not who we want to be and who i amg. speaking up, speaking out and taking action and saying it is not something that they want to be associated with. and then you have the business business icons who made that dramatic statement. these are not people who normally want the spotlight and drawing attention to themselves on these issues but they know that their wealth and stature does not insulate them from discrimination or weighing in and the message is having a platform really means nothing if you don't use the voice at the table. >> that seems to be the common
1:21 pm
thread. thank you for starting us off. mike, thank you for sticking around to be on tv. jason is sticking around with us. derek chauvin murder trial continues today. jurors hear from paramedics on the scene and from george floyd's girlfriend, all detailing that tragic day. plus, the racist attacks and words of hate toward asians in this country percolating is ins the early days of the pandemic and before but the violence is escalating. what authorities can do about it. and turning back to opening day of baseball. we are all excited. speak for myself at least. we'll look at how sports will protect the fans, how they respond to the pandemic and baseball to basketball, live report from miami coming up. all those stories and more when we continue after a quick break. don't go anywhere. e. for members like martin. an air force veteran made of doing what's right, not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit,
1:22 pm
usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. ♪ usaa ♪ it doesn't happen often. everyday people taking on the corporate special interests. and winning. but now, the for the people act stands on the brink of becoming law. ensuring accurate elections. iron-clad ethics rules to crack down on political self-dealing. a ban on dark money. and finally reducing corporate money in our politics. to restore our faith in government. because it's time. for the people to win. alright, i brought in ensure max protein... because it's time. ...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't (grunting noise) i'll take that. yeeeeeah!
1:23 pm
30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar drink, play, and win big in the powered by protein challenge! bike shop please hold. bike sales are booming. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a shortlist of quality candidates from our resume database. claim your $75 credit when you post your first job at indeed.com/bike. want to save hundreds on your wireless bill? when you post your first job with xfinity mobile, you can. how about saving hundreds on the new samsung galaxy s21 ultra 5g? you can do that too. all on the most reliable network? sure thing! and with fast, nationwide 5g included - at no extra cost? we've got you covered. so join the carrier rated #1 in customer satisfaction... ...and learn how much you can save at xfinitymobile.com/mysavings.
1:24 pm
history says: fine jewelry for occasions. we say: forget occasions. (snap) fine jewelry for every day, minus the traditional markups. ♪♪
1:25 pm
it's been another day of emotional testimony in the trial of chauvin as prosecutors try to paint a full picture of the victim, george floyd why the fist witness to take the stand today courtney ross was floyd's girlfriend. she described floyd as a family man, a quote good father deeply impacted by the loss of his mom a few years ago. >> he's a mama's boy. i could tell. from the minute i met him. he loves his mom so much and i knew that. we talked about her all the time. i knew how he felt.
1:26 pm
it's so hard to lose a parent. >> prosecutors asked her to go into detail about their mutual struggle with opioid addiction, a story that will no doubt resonate with countless americans. >> we both suffered from chronic pain. mine was in my neck and his was in his back. we -- we got addicted. and tried really hard to break that addiction. many times. >> and over how long of a period did this struggle go on for you, for both of you? >> addiction in my opinion is a lifelong struggle. so it's something that we -- we dealt with every day. >> during cross-examination, chauvin's attorneys focused on floyd's addiction bringing up an overdose that took place months
1:27 pm
before his death and appears to be part of what may be a key plank of the chauvin defense, this argument that the substances in floyd's body contribute todd the death. the testimony followed by first responder that is described a harrowing scene and a frantic rush on their part to try to treat floyd. one paramedic saying he thought floyd was dead when aarrived and said there was no reason the police officers couldn't have started doing chest compressions to try to revive him and another testified that officers stayed on floyd when they were looking for a pulse. floyd was not moving or breathing. >> i have standing a little ways away so i couldn't get -- my partner would have a more accurate description of the condition at that point but i didn't see any breathing or movement or anything like that. >> joining our conversation nbc
1:28 pm
news correspondent shaquille brewster live in minneapolis and shawna lloyd and jason johnson still here. shaq, i watched a lot of this and i still do not understand how and why not just derek chauvin but why all the police officers were physically restraining a man not moving or breathing. >> reporter: it makes you get a sense of the frustration you saw from the bystanders we heard from in the past three days of testimony. today we didn't hear from the main bystanders. we heard from the girlfriend of george floyd, someone that knew him extremely well and started the testimony and became emotional almost instantly talking about the first dates, his love for sports and also talking about their struggles with opioids and she deals with chronic neck issues. floyd dealt with chronic back problems and led to an opioid addiction. that opened a door somewhat for
1:29 pm
the defense to make one of the main points which is the fact that he had drugs in his system and go to the point of the officers being over george floyd in the final minutes and the testimony that we heard from the paramedics drove in the point where the paramedics saying that the officers were still over him and they saw a man without a heart beat, a man that didn't have a pulse. they saw a man who was not breathing. they say that condition never changed from the point that he arrived on the ambulance to when he arrived at the hospital and then was pronounced dead. so you really get a sense that the prosecution is trying to get ahead of what they know the defense will talk about which is the drug use, the drugs in the system but you get a sense that the prosecution wants to lay out that fact that george floyd for all intents and purposes was dead as he still had a knee in his neck. >> shawna, what is the role of
1:30 pm
presenting derek chauvin as depraved play in all this? >> it's important because when you look at what the charges, the jury's going to be charged with determining, what point he intended to do any harm looking at murder two and if he intended to commit grave bodily harm so that's very important or whether or not it was a reckless act that endangered someone, that would be murder three so they play into and become nuanced conversations that the jury will have to have looking at the actual charges. >> and it just seems to me that if -- and again, covering this i think i look at the evidence the way a jury must look at it. i don't know the individuals. i know most of what i know of this story from shaq's extraordinary reporting but what juror hears the testimony that
1:31 pm
they didn't do more and then hears from paramedic that is got there and basically my sense of the testimony today is by the time they arrived there was nothing they could do. how's that not depraved treatment on the part of chauvin? >> i think that's what the defense is trying to show but it isn't. this is hard, a case unlike any other before where we have so many witnesses, so many have backgrounds that speak to this very ability to tell whether somebody is conscious or not. we have an mma fighter. these are people that would notice and be well aware of when someone passed intoen conscious beheir and him being there unconscious the officers should have been aware that he went from being active to unconscious to possibly being dead before the paramedics got there. that's significant. >> jason, what's on your mind
1:32 pm
with today's testimony? >> so it's disturbing on two levels. i'm not a lawyer, i don't play one on the tv, but the entire defense relies upon something that doesn't make any sense and is offensive to common sense. the defense's argument is basically he had so many drugs in the system that he would have died that day anyway even without a neon his neck and every single time you see a witness, someone who humanizes george floyd, an emt say, yeah, this is ridiculous it makes it more clear how terrible the behavior was. my students have been live tweeting the trial and i think what takes me back, when i read their view, when i see the witness testimony today, is this is probably one of the few times with one of the trials where as much as the defense wants to make it about george floyd he is
1:33 pm
humanized in a way, empathized with in a way i have never seen in my lifetime for a black person who was killed by the police. people are crying, talking about what a good boyfriend he was, confused, guilt ridden by his death and as terrible as i think the situation is and that chauvin is going to be found guilty as a sacrificial lamb i'm at least somewhat mull if ied by the fact that we didn't see hours and hours of testimony trying to tear this man down who's already given up the greatest thing he could give up which is his life so somebody else can learn manager and maybe make changes in this country. >> shaq, to shawna and jason's point about what the legal questions will center around for this jury, what they'll at the end of this be asked to make a determination of it is how george floyd died and yesterday
1:34 pm
i likened it to the covid death. they try to say preexisting conditions, 550,000 died of covid not old age. this is the statement about george floyd's drug use and addiction which was again w should point out presented by the prosecution. as the defense attempts to construct the narrative that the cause of death is fentanyl in the system we want to remind the world that george floyd was walking, talking, laughing and breathing just fine before derek chauvin held his nieto george's neck blocking the ability to breathe and extinguishing his life for all to see. tens of thousands of americans struggle with opioid abuse and are treated with dignity, respect and support not brutality. we expect them to put the
1:35 pm
struggles on the trial. do you have -- i know you get the pool reports from the courtroom but between the family's statement and testimony today, do you have a sense that the prosecution feels like they did what they set out to do today framing the past drug use on their own terms? >> reporter: that's something to evaluate in the long term and not hearing much from the prosecution outside of what they're doing this court. in terms of what we see in court and hearing from the reporters in there, just two reporters, you get a sense that this is very disturbing stuff for the jury. if you watch this trial throughout the day on msnbc, i can tell you that you're not seeing many of the images. there's many images seeing play in court, some exhibits that are truly graphic that will scar many people that we have done a good job of not showing and not
1:36 pm
exposing the viewers to that but the jury is seeing that and there's one point where the pool reporters expresses a juror saying -- had her hand covering her mouth while watching the video of george floyd rolled on to the stretcher and placed on to the ambulance. another account it says all jurors watching the video, all of them stopped taking notes watching the video of george floyd trying to be resuscitated by the paramedics and when people see the images and especially have these jurors who some of them in jury questioning expressed concern about having to look at some of those graphic images it's something that will definitely touch them. who that means in terms of the law that remains to be seen. we have a whole -- we have the defense to bring their arguments forward. they have witnesses and they will have their own accounts to
1:37 pm
make. >> shawna, can you take us inside what you would be thinking if you were on either side? what would you be thinking at this point in the day on the prosecutor's team and if you were on the defense team? >> on the defense team you are assessing the damage, the emotional impact that these statements are making but you're always going to have to take a very gentle road with dealing with these witnesses because they're emotionally charged. they look to bring up the facts like with the girlfriend and illegal drug use, he had an overdose but you have to do it teasingly. right now it is the prosecution's case. when you're looking from the side of the prosecution you're looking at framing everything that they hear from this point after from the view of the testimony that we've heard so far, from the view of the
1:38 pm
bystanders and the paramedics and the girlfriend did a good job to humanize george and the struggle as many americans struggle and everything here is put into that frame work and that's a structure of the way to continue to present information. >> shaquille and shawna, thank you so much for joining us coverage. the man arrested for the beating of an asian woman in new york city is charged with multiple hate crimes. but the community is feeling so relief today. we'll talk about that crisis next. ♪♪ tex-mex. tex-mex. ♪♪ termites. go back up! hang on! i am hanging on.
1:39 pm
don't mess up your deck with tex-mex. terminix. hi. the only way to nix it is to terminix it. we started with computers. we didn't stop at computers. we didn't stop at storage or cloud. we kept going. working with our customers to enable the kind of technology that can guide an astronaut back to safety. and help make a hospital come to you, instead of you going to it. so when it comes to your business, you know we'll stop at nothing. some say this is my greatest challenge. so when it comes governments in record debt; inflation rising, currencies falling. but i've seen centuries of this. with one companion that hedges the risks you choose and those that choose you. the physical seam of a digital world, traded with a touch. my strongest and closest asset. the gold standard, so to speak ;) people call my future uncertain.
1:40 pm
but there's one thing i am sure of... as we continue to return to classrooms... parents like me want to make sure we're doing it safely. especially in the underserved communities hardest hit by covid. trust me, no one wants to get back to classroom learning more than teachers like me. using common sense safety measures like masks, physical distancing, and proper ventilation. safety is why we're prioritizing vaccinations for educators.
1:41 pm
because together, we all have a responsibility to do our part. and together, we will get through this, safely.
1:42 pm
the man arrested in that broughtal attack on a filipino woman on a new york city sidewalk earlier this week faces three felony hate crime charges. the surveil labs video released by police to show you is extremely disturbing. police say 38-year-old brandon eliot was already on lifetime parole for stabbing his man and made allegedly anti-asian remarks to the woman and pushed her to the ground and stomped on her head. "the washington post" reports yet some asian-american leaders caution that this new york case highlights the comply kated nature of hate crime attacks and said the quick legal charges should not be viewed as a panacea in dealing with the
1:43 pm
increasing racism. this week in response to the startling surge of attacks on asian-american and pacific islanders president biden announced new white house initiatives to address targeted violence and bias. joining the conversation is kirk bardella. jason's still with us. kurt, this exploded and i saw this on twitter before i saw it reported anywhere and you feel horror and the most horrific part of the story is the part we haven't mentioned which is that someone watched it happened. it seems that policies have to be protecting them from the bystander that does nothing and the person that attacks them. >> yeah. as someone who like so many in this country watched and experienced this particular assault through social media, i was struck not just by how brutal the attack was but by the
1:44 pm
lack of anyone doing anything to help, whether it was simply calling the police. the fact that wasn't done. the least to do in this situation stood out to me. every time one of these assaults happens to asian-american on the subway or the streets everyone has their phone out but where are the people that are trying to stop in and help these defenseless and traditionally elderly asian-american men and women being attacked? i'd like to think if i saw someone being attacked whether they were white, black, asian, latino, middle eastern to try to do something to stop that from happening and this is part of -- it is not enough to just tweet the hash tag stop asian hate and while that's great we need people to get involved. we need people to take action and when you are in proximity to something like that going on we need you to step in and try to help, too, because these things
1:45 pm
will keep happening and escalating unless we all as a community of just human beings take a stand together and unite against violent, against minorities in this country. >> that's the -- i'm a meddler, whether organizing the overhead luggage for someone within ten rows or calling 911, i don't know how you legislate that. how do you create policies that -- because to me both crimes seem to be justifying the same kind of policy response, the criminal needs to be charged and the bystander needs treatment because it is the bystander making the difference sometimes. how do you capture the bystanders and change their behavior? >> it remind me of that saying
1:46 pm
for evil to triumph is only for good people to do nothing and obviously you can't make it a crime to not do something i suppose. but we have to, again, we can't just have what we call performtive activism, if you care about change, if you're passionate about equality and justice in america then it takes more than posting on instagram or twitter. it takes more than doing the performative least possible and requires you to be aware and look within your own world and your own community at what injustices are happening and taking a leadership role trying to right the wrongs and also requires that we have a better sense of the historical context. this is not new in this country and didn't just happen over the last year. watching the trial right now
1:47 pm
going on in the effort to get justice for george floyd i think back to 1982 in michigan when vincent chen murdered by two white guys and got off with a $3,000 fine and no justice for vincent chen at all. the pursuit of justice is widespread among all communities of color including asian-americans and we need to understand and do due diligence to understand what's going on because just because it's not leading the news for 30 years doesn't mean it's not something that people that look like me haven't been living with all their lives. >> thank you. jason and i are going to dip back into that very trial, the murder trial of derek chauvin. let's watch. >> at this time, i'm going to ask to publish exhibit 266. and i'm going to ask to publish
1:48 pm
265. they're two different renditions of the same conversation. and exhibit 266 you will see sort of the body position of the defendant as you're having this conversation and then in the next exhibit you hear the audio. [ inaudible ] >> yes, your honor. >> this is a quick sidebar. we are back in, jason. we are listening to testimony about this first interaction among law enforcement with derek chauvin and his supervisor. what do you think the importance is of this part of the story? this is, again, a prosecution witness. >> what they want to show here is that everybody thought that what chauvin did was wrong, that even the other officers --
1:49 pm
>> i'm sorry, jason. i'm so sorry to do this. they're back. let's listen. >> at this time ask to publish 266. [ inaudible ] >> all right. did you recognize your own voice in that clip or is that kind of hard to hear? >> it was hard to hear but it sounded like me. >> okay. you saw that officer chauvin the defendant was sort of leaned up against your squad car. is that right? >> yes. >> and if we could publish 265. >> the witness -- anything down here? >> you can -- all pretty hostile. >> okay. okay. >> all right. and you can take that down.
1:50 pm
so you heard yourself directing the defendant to find witnesses and find their names. is that right? >> yes. >> the defendant said they could try but that they were pretty hostile? >> yes. >> but you asked him to do >> and then when you drove away, where did you go? >> hennepin county medical center. >> do you know approximately how long it took you to arrive? >> i guess under ten minutes. >> what did you do once you reached the hennepin county medical center? >> i went into the stabilization room. >> what's the stabilization room? >> a room where they take patients who are critical and work on them there. >> what did you see when you arrived at the stabilization room? >> they were working on george floyd. i think they had the lucas machine going, which does automated chest compressions. >> who was working on them?
1:51 pm
>> hennepin county medical center staff, doctors, nurses. >> how long do you think you watched the staff work on mr. floyd? >> a few minutes, maybe. >> did you see or speak with any of the staff members who were working on mr. floyd? >> i spoke with a nurse while i was there. >> did you ask the nurse for any information? >> i was trying to get a condition update. >> and did you? >> i did. >> what did the nurse tell you? >> that he was doing bad or poorly. >> okay. now, are you aware of whether, per your direction, the defendant and officer thao eventually arrived at the hennepin county medical center? >> yes. >> did you see them in the stabilization room or near the stabilization room? >> i think outside the stabilization room. >> exhibit 77 is a body worn camera photo of the defendant, at this time, the state offers exhibit 77. >> any objection. >> no, your honor.
1:52 pm
>> 77 is received. >> publish exhibit 77. and you see the defendant present here, is that right? >> yes. >> okay. and also noting the time on the body worn camera, 21:05.7, is that right? >> yes. >> so, about 9:05. >> right. >> and you also see officer thao. >> yes. >> after the nurse told you that mr. floyd was doing poorly, what did you do? >> i believe i maybe had a conversation with lieutenant madison, who was -- that night. >> what's lieutenant -- what is lieutenant madison's role? >> car 90 is kind of in charge of the city in the evening. >> and what was the nature of your conversation with the lieutenant? >> i think i just let her know that floyd was doing poorly and
1:53 pm
i think he was on the phone with internal affairs at the time giving an update on what was going on. >> did -- and exhibit 78 is another image from the body worn camera. depicting lieutenant madsen, offer exhibit 78. >> no objection. >> 78 is received. >> publish exhibit 78. what do you see in this photo? >> myself, some of the hospital staff. >> and it was after you'd made these observations that you spoke with lieutenant madsen? >> yes. >> okay. did you attempt, then, after your conversation with lieutenant madsen to gather more information from the defendant and officer thao? >> i did. i think requested me to ask them if they'd used any other force. >> and did you have that conversation with the defendant? you can take that down.
1:54 pm
>> i did. >> do you recall what the defendant told you? >> he said he knelt on floyd or knelt on his neck, something of that nature. i don't recall his exact words. >> is that the first time you became aware that force had been applied to mr. floyd's neck? >> yes. >> did the defendant tell you how long he had applied pressure or restrained mr. floyd and applied pressure to his neck? >> no. >> at some point, did you receive yet another update on mr. floyd's medical condition? >> i did. someone approached me to let me know that he passed away. >> and after you learned that mr. floyd passed away, did that
1:55 pm
change the nature of the incident you were responding to? >> yes, it was deemed a critical incident. >> what is a critical incident? >> somebody passes away in police custody, high-level, shooting or somebody shot and killed by police, things of that nature. >> and what are your responsibilities, then, as the shift sergeant when a critical incident happens in an area over which you have supervisory authority? >> it needs to be roped off with police tape and evidence preserved. body-worn cameras, make sure they're turned back on. >> okay. what has to be done with the people who are involved in the critical incident? >> they need to be kept separate and eventually transported out to the courthouse. >> okay. and in this case, did you take specific steps that were consistent with a critical incident response? >> i did. >> what did you do? >> got ahold of sergeant john
1:56 pm
edwards, who is the overnight supervisor who had just come on and asked him to head down to 38th and chicago and secure that scene, and then i believe i got hold of some other sergeants to help set up rides for the involved officers to city hall. >> so, in this contacting sergeant edwards, you're essentially handing off the actual physical scene to the next supervisory sergeant for the third precinct, is that right? >> yes. >> and you were able to secure transport officers or rides for officers lane and keung? >> i don't recollect if it was me who found the rides for those two or chauvin but i found somebody to have figure it out. >> can you describe your
1:57 pm
interactions with the defendant after you discovered that mr. floyd had passed away? >> other than asking him to head down -- get down to 108, not too -- >> what's 108? >> room 108 is one of the rooms in the city hall where the officers are going to gather to be interviewed and stuff after the critical incident. >> what did you -- did you then proceed to room 108? >> i did. >> and what did you do after you proceeded to room 108? >> i mostly just waited until the officers were interviewed and eventually headed back to the 3 precinct station. >> did you have any further interaction with the defendant at room 108 or did the other administrative personnel take charge? >> pretty much the other administrative personnel. >> after, then, directing edwards to secure the scene,
1:58 pm
making sure that the officers reported as they were supposed to, did you at some point gather some additional evidence associated with this case? >> i did. >> when was that? >> i was back at the third precinct and i believe officer lane approached me and had forgotten some information in his pocket, some witness information that he had taken from somebody in the vehicle, and turned that over to me, which i turned over to another officer to be property inventoried. >> and after inventorying that information or that material, did you have any other involvement in the case? >> i wrote a short report on turning that information over and that was it for the day. >> okay. and when did your shift end that night? >> i don't recall the time i left the station that night. >> okay. now, again, you have reviewed the body-worn camera footage
1:59 pm
associated with this case, is that right? >> i have. >> and as the supervisory shift sergeant, you're a person who typically does force reviews, is that right? >> yes. >> and to clarify your testimony from earlier, the restraint of an individual on the ground is a form of force, correct? >> yes. . >> and restraining someone on the ground, handcuffed, that's considered to be the prone position, correct? >> correct. >> would you agree that a person may be restrained only to the degree necessary to keep them under control? >> yes. >> and no more restraint? >> right. >> based upon your review of this incident, do you believe that the restraint should have ended at some point in the encounter? >> object, your honor.
2:00 pm
>> grounds? >> it's another side bar, jason johnson, i cut you off when you were making a salient point that became all the more salient about how all of these witnesses saw the same thing, someone who had done harm, done something wrong. >> right, right, and he sort of -- you can see where the prosecutor is certainly taking him down this path of, like, okay, did you think that was force? was it force on the ground? how can we define force? why were you concerned about this person if it was just a regular arrest? what they're laying out is that derek chauvin's behavior can't be considered normal, that it will fall outside of the bounds of training, that there was nothing about the circumstance -- yes, chauvin will say, i thought the people were a little hostile but the other officer says, gather them up anyway so clearly the other officer didn't think that the other people around appeared to be presenting any sort of
2:01 pm
immediate danger to chauvin so that's what they want to lay out, that this guy did something that was wrong. his training knew better. his colleagues knew better. the witnesses knew better. everybody knew better, and he still did what he wanted, which resulted in george floyd dying. >> there's also an interesting sort of chain of -- a new timeline in when his supervisor learned the facts of the case. this witness came a second late. this is david pleoger. he recently retired as a sergeant from the minneapolis police department but at the time of the killing of joirj floyd, he was derek chauvin's boss. he says that he did not learn about the knee on george floyd's neck until he got to the hospital. there was that photo, either entered into evidence or it was already in, that was brought up. i wonder, too, if you take the sort of different vantage points that the prosecution is presenting to this jury and you pull the point earlier that they've presented it from the eye-witnesses who were just there by a twist of fate.
2:02 pm
they've presented it from the humans closest to him, his girlfriend. they've presented it from the emergency medical responders, one off-duty, and then the officials who responded and saw the same thing. and now from chauvin's own boss. they all saw the same thing, jason. >> yeah. and nicole, like, you could not ask -- as a prosecutor, you couldn't ask for a better collection of witnesses. nurses, emts, coworkers, mma fighters, i mean, this is literally a collection -- this isn't just sort of a witnesses of your peers. these are all people who have a specific level of expertise and it's not like they were set up that way. they all happened to witness this same heinous kind of behavior. but i also think it's important because when we're talking about a supervisor, we're talking about somebody who also knows derek chauvin's behavior, who also would be familiar with how this man was trained, who would also be familiar with how he behaves overall. and so, again, i'm caught up on this moment where he's like, yeah, i thought these people
2:03 pm
were hostile, he still said, talk to them. implication, i know derek. i know he's going to say everybody's hostile when he goes about doing his job so i found that to be compelling as well. if you tell your boss, oh, gosh, you know, the customers in the restaurant are terrible today, yeah, get back out there. it's because he knows who he's dealing with. so i think all of these things, they're not just training issues and witness issues. they also become character references about who officer chauvin actually was on that day. >> it's such an important point, jason johnson, one that was also furthered by the paramedic who said he walked into the store, mingled with the off-duty emt who testified earlier, so you're right, they're painting a portrait of derek chauvin as very much the outlier in his assessment of the crowd. shaq brewster, i believe, has made his way to a camera location. shaq? >> reporter: hi there, nicole. you know, few interesting things that we heard there and this testimony, as you mentioned, it's in a side bar right now so
2:04 pm
they're conferring with the judge right now but you heard the supervisor ask about the body camera and the fact that it was on, is your body camera on? that was captured a little bit in it, and then we saw some new body camera video. this is some new video we're seeing from the officers at the actual hospital as george floyd was being worked on, and i believe the judge -- the courtroom is back in session, so i'll let you listen there. >> shift sergeant in conducting force reviews. when you conduct a force review, you typically visit the scene, is that right? >> yes. >> interview witnesses, correct? >> yes. >> gather all the information, body-worn cameras, correct? >> yes. >> and review that footage, correct? >> yes. >> and make a preliminary determination as to whether or not it would be necessary to forward this for a review by internal affairs, is that right? >> yes. >> and if you review some body-worn camera footage and find there's nothing to review, you wouldn't forwa affairs?
2:05 pm
>> if i was doing a force report, i believe it would go there anyway. all force reports do. >> would also go to internal affairs? >> correct. >> if you review a body-worn camera footage and determine that use of force might have been excessive, do you make a recommendation to internal affairs? >> yes. in that case, you would have to contact internal affairs. >> i submit the foundation, your honor. >> we are also joined now by shawna lloyd. >> right now, we're seeing them confer. the judge is going to make a decision and then it will be interesting to see what they come back with. i think this witness is going to be very significant from a procedural, knowing who derek is. he's worked with him. he's supervised him.
2:06 pm
his assessments are going to be very important and i think the jury's going to be keyed in on what he has to say right now. >> let's listen. >> i'm going to have you take a break while we figure out a fairly sticky legal issue here. we'll have you back fairly soon. >> all right. as channa just basically predicted in realtime, it's a significant legal issue that has come up. they're taking a break. let me reset for everybody. the witness that has taken the stand was derek chauvin's supervisor. he's now retired. his name is david pleoger, and his testimony is significant for obvious reasons, and channa, you started to explain some more subtle ones, such as who derek chauvin was before this moment and in this moment. explain. >> i think that this is going to be really significant because this is his supervising officer. this is the person that knows the way he works. he knows his strengths, his weaknesses. i think so this -- when he's
2:07 pm
talking about derek, this is not some tangential relation. he has direct knowledge. and it's someone that has been under him for a while, so what he has to say is going to be very weighty with our jury because this is someone who had interacted with him every day. he knows and is aware of his proliveties, his strengths and weaknesses. that's going to be really important when we're assessing whether or not what he did was the appropriate use of force, whether it was excessive force, whether he was prone to having these types of ideas where everyone is hostile, how he assesses and what he assesses, if he's prone one way or the other, i think it's going to become very apparent as we hear him testify further. >> let's listen in. >> interview the officers that were involved, correct? >> yes. >> you may interview the person upon whom force was used, right? >> yes. >> you may interview witnesses to the use of force if they exist, correct? >> yes. >> you may review body-worn
2:08 pm
cameras, other evidence, photographs, whatever else may be a part of that process, right? >> yes. >> and it is much greater in -- it's a limited but it's a bigger scope, right? >> yes. >> when a critical -- when a use of force incident becomes a critical incident, however, does your role change? >> i would no longer do a use of force in a critical incident, nor would i do it if someone had suffered an injury if they were handcuffed. that goes up the chain, then, to a lieutenant at internal affairs. >> okay. so, in certain circumstances, you would not be required to do that, right? >> correct. >> and also, in addition, your honor -- or, sergeant pleoger -- i apologize -- you did not do any of that use of force report review -- use of force review on may 25th of 2020, did you? >> no. >> you didn't speak with the officers in depth about what happened, correct?
2:09 pm
>> no. >> you didn't interview any of the witnesses that were at the scene, did you? >> no. >> and you didn't review the body-worn cameras that night, did you? >> no. >> in preparation for your testimony, were you given the entirety of the case file for this case? >> no. >> i mean, do you have 50,000 pages of police reports? >> no. >> have you reviewed any of the interviews from any of the witnesses? >> no. >> have you reviewed any of the statements that were given relevant to this case by any of the involved officers from those who did give statements? >> no. >> all right. so, in this case, in preparation, were you allowed to watch the entirety of all of the body-worn cameras? >> i think i did. >> okay. and that was in preparation or while you were being interviewed with the state prosecutors, right? >> correct. >> okay.
2:10 pm
so, in terms of the information you have, you have a limited amount of information, which would be limited to just a review of the body-worn cameras? >> yes. >> and that would not be the normal course for a sergeant's use of force review? >> yes. >> i'm still not clear as to who made the decision in this case, so mr. swisher, i don't have very much of a foundation for who gave this opinion. or gave an opinion in this case. could you follow up? >> i'm sorry, your honor. i had a hard time hearing that. >> i don't think i have a foundation yet. sounds like a critical incident, it gets passed up. who made -- i don't know who made the decision on use of force. >> well, there was -- >> could you maybe inquire? >> i can, your honor. i want to just clean up one part of the record first. in terms of reviewing the
2:11 pm
body-worn camera with the state -- i think the question was state prosecutors. you didn't review them with the state prosecutors but you have reviewed those with prosecutors, is that correct? >> correct. >> all right. other prosecutors, not associated with this particular case. >> right. >> is that right? >> yes. >> now, in -- to answer the court's question, in terms of whether or not you did a use of force review pursuant to the policy in this particular case, you did not, correct? >> correct. >> you passed the scene along and followed the critical incident policy, you know, per the critical incident guidelines, is that right? >> yes. >> however, in the course of your duties as a shift sergeant, you do force reviews, is that right? >> yes. >> you follow the policy in conducting supervisory force reviews? >> yes. >> and if we could pull up the exhibit again, 222.
2:12 pm
you can go to the next page, please. in conducting a force review, if you could please call out row i. you contact the internal affairs unit commander by phone if the force used appears to be unreasonable or constitute possible misconduct, is that right? >> yes. >> so, you make a threshold assessment of whether or not force is excessive or could constitute possible misconduct, true? >> true. >> and if you could go to the next page. call out "b."
2:13 pm
and again, based on the totality of information available at the time, if you, as a supervisor, feel that the use of force may have been unreasonable or not within policy, you can state so in your supervisory force review, is that right? >> yes. >> and that's the policy that you follow? >> yes. >> and so your honor, i don't believe that this is a lack of foundation. he has clearly qualified to give an opinion, and a limited opinion, that based on his preliminary review, as stated and disclosed, he believed that the restraint should have ended very shortly after mr. floyd was taken to the ground, handcuffed, and no longer resistant. that's the sum and substance of the opinion i intend to offer. >> if i could just follow up with a couple questions, your honor. >> in this particular case, the
2:14 pm
reason you called the lieutenant was because mr. floyd died, right? >> i would have called the lieutenant first because force was used and he was in handcuffs and he forced the results -- or that's use when somebody's in handcuffs requires me to call the lieutenant and internal affairs. >> that went up the chain naturally that way, and then when mr. floyd died, this use of force policy is replaced with the critical incident policy? >> yes. >> so, your honor, i guess the issue here is this is exactly what the moments in limine were designed to effectuate. this officer, sergeant pleoger, did not make this determination. he has not done a use of force review as he would have done in this policy. he has not reviewed the entirety of the evidence in this particular case, and while he may have seen certain body camera footage and made some determination based on that limited information, he hasn't seen everything else. the -- and so it's -- it is not
2:15 pm
within his purview -- this is what the motion in limine was specifically designed for. >> mr. swisher, as i understood it, you're asking a narrower opinion? >> that's correct, your honor. i'm asking exactly what i proffered, that in his opinion, the force should have ended very shortly after mr. floyd was on the ground, handcuffed in the prone position and no longer resistant. >> you can ask that one question. let's bring the jury back. >> they're going back and forth among themselves and with the judge. i mean going to ask an expert to explain with a why, but i want to point out something that strikes me. what was established by this witness is that part of the reason for some of the procedures that ensued was, quote, force was used while he was in handcuffs.
2:16 pm
that feels central, channa, to what we're covering and watching. >> it is. and what they're trying to do is -- it's a very nuanced point, but the state is actually doing a very good job because the defense doesn't want any more law enforcement saying that this was an excessive use of force, because that is not good for their case. the state is actually getting a very limited, nuanced opinion in that in order to escalate something, i first have to assess it as having been excessive force. so, they're looking for his limited opinion on that one particular area, but it's significant for the jury because yet again, we have another person in law enforcement saying that it was my opinion, at the time, that this was excessive force. he was in handcuffs, therefore, i needed to escalate. so it's a nuanced argument there that they were -- that is a very technical point, but it's going to be definitely something that's impactful. >> and the just stays right in your brain that someone was --
2:17 pm
force was used on someone in handcuffs. let's go back in and listen a little more. >> do you have an opinion as to when the restraint of mr. floyd should have ended in this encounter? >> yes. >> what is it? >> when mr. floyd was no longer offering up any resistance to the officers, they could have ended the restraint. >> and that was after he was handcuffed and on the ground and no longer resistant? >> correct. >> thank you. i have no further questions, your honor. >> mr. nelson. >> thank you, your honor. >> good afternoon, sergeant
2:18 pm
pleoger. >> good afternoon, sir. >> thank you for being with us today. a few questions that i had to follow up on with you. when a police officer under your command uses force, are they required to immediately notify you? >> it depends on the type of force. >> okay. are there certain circumstances where you may get a phone call or a radio dispatch immediately? >> yes. >> are there certain circumstances or situations where you may get a phone call or a report of the use of force within 10 to 15 minutes? >> yes. >> are there circumstances where you may get a use of force report or -- from an officer from an hour or two later? >> not one that would cause me to have to go to the scene. that would be more immediate. they would want to let me know right away because i need to get out there and interview the
2:19 pm
subject. >> right. but it could happen within more than, say, 10, 15, 20 minutes, that you get that notification? >> yes. >> it would be fair to say that in certain types of use of force, there may be other or use of force cases, there may be other activities that the officer needs to do after the use of force, would you agree with that? >> yes. >> so, they may use force against suspect number one but then they have to apprehend suspect number two, for example, right? >> yes. >> and they've used force on number one but they get number two detained and it takes some time, then they call you, right? >> yes. >> or for example, an officer may use force on someone, conduct some additional investigation, whether it be interviewing witnesses or gathering evidence, and then call you to report the use of force, right? >> yes. >> is there a policy within the minneapolis police department that requires an officer who uses force to do that through dispatch channels? >> no. >> they could call you on your cell phone? >> yes. >> they could send you a text?
2:20 pm
>> yes. >> basically, their requirement is that they need to reach out to you and say, hey, we need you to come to the scene, right? >> yes. >> we used force. now -- just a second. i'm showing you exhibit 221. policy 5-306 regarding medical assistance.
2:21 pm
what do the first four words after "medical assistance" read? >> as soon as reasonably. >> practical, right? >> oh, i said four. sorry. you caught me. as soon as reasonably practical. >> correct. >> they have -- an officer has to use or render medical assistance as soon as is reasonably practical, correct? >> yes. >> now, are you familiar, generally, with the minneapolis police department's critical decision making model? >> somewhat. >> essentially, when a police officer is engaged in a situation, would you agree that an officer is constantly taking in new information, processing that information, comparing it to what happened before, and making decisions based on information as it comes in? >> yes. >> and information as an officer is dealing with the situation can change, right? >> yes.
2:22 pm
>> and that information that they take in may change or modify the behavior and response to the situation, right? >> yes. >> so, for example, sometimes an officer may decide to use a taser or a conducted electricity unit, right, but then realize, oh, that's not enough. i better get my gun out, based on the threat that they perceive, right? >> yes. >> or, vice versa. they may have their gun drawn, realize that's too much force, put it away, and take out a different tool that they have, right? >> yes. >> so, officers are constantly assessing and reassessing a situation based upon the information as it comes to them, agreed? >> yes. >> you've been -- you were an officer for, what, 27 years, i think you said? i'm assuming arrested hundreds if not thousands of individuals during your career? >> yes. >> you've had to use force
2:23 pm
yourself? >> yes. >> and would you agree with the general premise that the use of force is not necessarily attractive? >> yes. >> and sometimes officers have to do very violent things, agreed? >> yes. >> it's a dangerous job. >> correct. >> have you ever heard the term, hold for ems? an officer says, i held him for ems? >> not familiar with that. >> okay. so, if you are involved in a use of force situation, and an officer calls for medics, right, and i'm going to strike that. an officer decides to use the maximal restraint or the hobble, right? but they've -- a medical emergency arises and they call for ems.
2:24 pm
would it be consistent with the critical decision making policy to say, i'm not going to hobble this person because i know ems is on the way? >> objection, your honor. side bar. >> so, this is another sidebar. channa, we keep coming to you to understand exactly what's going on. to our last conversation, though, they seem to have established this narrow point that the moment at which force is no longer justified or warranted or necessary or legal, whatever the right term is, is once the suspect is handcuffed. that was 9 minutes and 20 seconds before the knee went on his neck. >> correct. and what's -- he's trying to make these nuanced points in that information is changing, things are changing, and therefore, he has to make new decisions as opposed to it being one consistent decision, right? he wants to break this up, and the defense wants to break this up into decisions that were continually being made as opposed to one long decision.
2:25 pm
because one long decision is going to speak towards intent, malice, things of that nature but he wants to break it up in that we're constantly getting new information, we're constantly making new decisions. he also wants to very much keep this witness on a narrow scope, so he's trying to avoid any sort of references outside. he's going to try to ensure that he stays in this narrow scope that he has been given. >> let's listen. >> assume an officer was engaged in a struggle with a suspect and decided to use the maximal restraint technique. but then the suspect had a medical emergency. would it be common for the officer to decide, i'm not going to use the maximal restraint technique at this point? i'm going to hold this suspect in place until ems gets here? >> objection, calls for speculation. >> overruled. >> so, your scenario is an
2:26 pm
officer is planning to use the hobble, hasn't put it on yet and then the suspect has a medical emergency and they decide not to use it and just hold them? >> correct. >> yes. >> when a maximal restraint technique is applied, the suspect is essentially handcuffed behind their back and through a series of belts, their legs are bent at kind of an upward angle and then connected to some sort of device, right, around the waist? >> i don't think they bend towards the back anymore. they like to keep them straight. >> but there's a tie between the ankles and the waist, essentially? >> correct. >> and if ems is on their way, the restraint -- you've got to take that off and can delay medical care, agreed? >> you're saying taking -- take -- i'm sorry, could you repeat that? >> if an officers uses the maximal restraint technique, and ems has to come, the officers
2:27 pm
have to remove that potentially, right? >> correct. >> and that can delay medical treatment. >> sure. >> now, again, in your 27 years as a police officer, have you had to deal with crowds of people that form and watch your activity? >> yes. >> in your experience as a police officer, especially in the more recent era, have you been in a situation where bystanders begin to film you and your activities? >> yes. >> does that happen more and more these days than it did five years ago? >> yes. >> and have you been in a situation in your career as a law enforcement officer where the crowd starts to yell at you? >> yes. >> or becomes a little more
2:28 pm
volatile? >> yes. >> as an officer, does that cause you concern? >> yes. >> generally speaking, as, again, an officer with 27 years of experience, if you're dealing with one potential suspect and then a new perceived threat emerges, but you know that person needs medical attention, do you deal with the medical attention and ignore the threat, or do you deal with the threat and then deal with the medical attention? >> i guess you'd have to deal with both kind of simultaneously. >> and that depends on the circumstances, would you agree with that? >> yes. >> so, for example, if you were in a gun battle and someone was shooting at you and someone had a -- went into cardiac arrest,
2:29 pm
would you stop what you were doing to mitigate the threat in order to immediately perform cpr? or would you continue with the threat? >> i'd mitigate that threat to me. >> you've been -- you've gone through all the standard training of minneapolis police department? >> yes. >> you had to deal with suspects who had been rendered unconscious? >> occasionally. >> you aware that the minneapolis police department, where the training indicates that you need to be careful because when someone comes back out of consciousness -- unconsciousness, they can become more volatile than they were before? >> that can happen, yes. >> you were asked a series of questions about what you --
2:30 pm
about the sergeant's use of force review, right, a force review? >> yes. >> and in a force review, there are certain things that you're required to do, correct? >> yes. >> that would include having a conversation with the involved officer, right? >> right. >> that would involve potentially having a conversation with the suspect upon whom force was used, agreed? >> yes. >> review of the body-worn cameras, right? >> yes. >> review of any other evidence that may exist, such as witness statements, photographs, phone records, whatever it may consist of, right? >> yes. >> it's not a huge, very thorough investigation. it's kind of a cursory look, right? >> correct. >> and -- but there's more to it than simply watching a body-worn camera, right? >> yes. >> in this particular case, when you arrived on scene, you
2:31 pm
initially spoke with officers keung and lane and mr. chauvin was present in that scene? >> yes. >> and he was listening as officer keung and lane told you what had just happened. >> yes. >> now, when -- in your experience as a police officer, when a supervisor's use of force -- well, strike that. when an -- when one group of officers goes to a scene and a second shows up to assist, whose arrest is that? is it the original officer or the assisting officers? >> should be the original officer. >> and so, when you're reviewing a circumstance, is it going to be -- would it be your policy to talk to the arresting officers or the assisting officers? first. to find out what happened. >> i guess i might care one way or the other, whoever wants to tell me the story.
2:32 pm
>> and if one officer's responsible for it, you're going to go to that officer, right? >> right. >> and if two officers, you're going to ask them both? >> correct. >> and if all of the officers are standing around and they're talking about it, that's what you need to do initially, right? >> correct. >> now, you were discussing, again, in this particular incident, you were -- when you arrived on scene, you asked -- you kind of gave some direction to these officers, right? >> yes. >> and at the point that you arrived on scene, you knew it was a use of force incident, but it was not what you would call a critical incident, agreed? >> agreed. >> because at that point, mr. floyd, to the best of your knowledge, was still alive? >> right. >> objection. >> speculation. >> if you know what the answer to that is. >> one more time, sir.
2:33 pm
>> at the point that you were initially on scene, you had no information that mr. floyd was deceased, right? >> correct. >> now, you then instructed the officers to do a few things, right? potentially talk to witnesses and then two officers to go down to the hospital with you? >> yes. >> in their squad car? >> yes. >> all right. and that's -- we saw this video where you instructed officer chauvin to try to get some witness statements, things of that nature, right? >> yes. >> and he had the -- he made the comment that he would try but that the crowd seemed pretty hostile. >> yes. >> officer chauvin and officer thao ended up at the hospital with you? >> they did.
2:34 pm
>> and officer keung and officer lane remained on scene? right? >> yes. >> at some point, when you learned that mr. floyd had died, the use of force was no longer -- the use of force review was no longer reviewed by you, correct? >> correct. >> someone died -- well, and i believe even per policy, if someone was -- a use of force occurred while someone was in handcuffs, that policy required you to reach out to your superiors, right? >> that's correct. >> and if mr. floyd had not died, you would have not conducted a use of force review, correct? >> correct. >> you would have left it to the higher-ups, the people up the chain of command. >> right, since he sustained an injury in handcuffs. >> right. and likewise, when a suspect dies in police custody, you don't do a use of force review? >> right. >> and you did not do a use of force review in this case, did you? >> no.
2:35 pm
>> you talked about when it became a critical incident, the officers ended up at room 100 down at city hall. i think you initially said it was the courthouse, but you're talking about city hall across the street? >> yes. i said around. >> and that's a room that's maintained by the minneapolis police administration, right? >> right. >> that's where any involved officers go during a critical incident? >> right. >> officers who are involved or potentially witnesses to a critical incident? >> correct. >> and you understand that the four involved officers were each individually transported to room 100, right? >> i believe that was the case. >> and you referenced that at that point, kind of the critical incident policy takes over and certain things have to happen pursuant to the critical incident policy, right?
2:36 pm
>> yes. >> a whole host of things have to happen, right? >> yes. >> and you referenced interviews of officers. you have no idea if interviews of officers occurred in room 100 on or about may 25, 2020, or may 26 of 2020? >> i'm not positive, no. >> all right. that's one thing that could potentially happen, right? >> yes. >> but not necessarily? >> right. >> now, you testified that kind of at the end of the night, officer lane or end of your involvement, officer lane handed you a couple of pieces of evidence that pertained to the arrest back at 38th and chicago, right? >> correct. >> or the incident at 38th and chicago, right? >> yes. >> do you recall what those items were? >> i recall one for sure was a slip of paper with a name from
2:37 pm
one of the parties in the vehicle that he had gotten. >> okay. was he -- do you recall the other being an identification card? >> i think so. >> and do you remember the name of the person that was on the slip of paper? >> i don't. >> would it refresh your recollection to review your report that you drafted that night? >> yes. >> may i approach the witness, your honor? >> you may.
2:38 pm
>> does that refresh your recollection? >> yes. >> what was the name on the piece of paper? >> shwanda hill. >> and the other item that he handed you was an -- a minnesota identification card, correct? >> correct. >> with the name of william smythe? >> yes. >> i have no further questions, your honor.
2:39 pm
>> thank you, your honor. sir, you were asked whether you agree with the proposition that sometimes police officers have to do violent things, and you agreed with that, correct? >> yes. >> but sometimes police officers should not do violent things, isn't that right? >> yes. >> you were asked about the critical thinking model that's used and adopted by the minneapolis police department, correct? >> correct. >> and that's a model that requires officers to continually take in information, evaluate it, reevaluate it, reassess, and if necessary, adjust their conduct, correct? >> yes. >> okay. and as you stated under questioning by defense counsel, sometimes the information they're taking in would cause the officer to need to take more drastic measures, fair? >> yes. >> but sometimes the information that the officer would take in
2:40 pm
would cause them to need to reevaluate what they're doing and use less drastic measures, correct? >> yes. >> some of the information that might be relevant is whether or not the -- >> object. >> overruled. >> whether or not the subject is resisting, correct? >> could you say that one more? >> one of the pieces of the information the officer may need to take in and evaluate is whether the subject is resisting, correct? >> yes. >> and if the subject is not resisting, there is no longer a need to continue to restrain them, correct? >> yes. >> and other information that might be helpful in making an assessment is to determine whether or not the subject is continuing to breathe, correct? >> yes. >> object, your honor. >> mr. swisher, if you would rephrase. >> would it be important for an
2:41 pm
officer -- >> response is stricken. >> would it be reasonable, then, in a critical thinking model for an officer to determine and take in information about the subject's medical condition? >> yes. >> for example, if the subject is no longer breathing, would it be important for the officer to take that into account to reassess and reevaluate what they're doing? >> yes. >> or if the subject no longer has a pulse, for example, would that be important information in the critical thinking model for the officer to take in, consider, and decide to maybe take a different step? >> yes. >> and in such a case, would it be possible, then, that the officer would not need to do something violent but would need to do something less violent?
2:42 pm
>> yes. >> like render medical assistance? >> yes. >> you were asked about threat assessment. is that right? >> yes. >> and you were asked about an example of whether an officer would perceive a threat if there was a gun battle, a need to make a determination between medical attention and that kind of extreme threat, right? >> yes. >> you reviewed the body-worn cameras, correct? >> i've reviewed -- yes, i've reviewed body-worn camera footage. >> you didn't see a gun battle? >> no. >> nothing further.
2:43 pm
>> so, the critical decision making model requires the officers to take in multiple pieces of information and decide what -- how to act based on the circumstances, right? >> yes. >> other factors they may consider is the size of a crowd, right? >> yes. >> their tactical position? >> yes. >> traffic? >> sure. >> rendering medical aid to a person in the middle of a busy street while buses and cars are turning, that may not be the best decision for an officer to make? >> right. >> rendering medical aid or trying to -- while trying to deal with other people who are upset with you or volatile towards you may come into play, agreed? >> yes. >> an officer who is essentially
2:44 pm
in a tactical disadvantage, that would come into play? >> yes. >> officers have to look at lots of different bits of information and decide how to proceed based on the totality of the circumstances and not just one single fact, agreed? >> yes. >> no further questions. >> nothing further? briefly? >> and an officer needs to consider whether other sources of information might be relevant to the need to render medical aid, correct? >> yes. >> including people telling the officer that a person was in need of medical assistance? that might be important for them to consider? >> sure.
2:45 pm
>> and if somebody's communicating this in a desperate fashion, that doesn't necessarily constitute a threat to the officer, does it? >> object. leading. >> sustained. >> i have nothing further, your honor. >> thank you. >> thank you, sergeant. you may step down. >> thank you, sir. >> members of the jury, we're going to adjourn for the day. >> that is the end of this day's testimony. that was the testimony of sergeant david pleoger, who was derek chauvin's supervisor at the time of the killing of george floyd. chuck rosenberg has been watching along with us. chuck, take us through what, in your view, is the most significant thing that the prosecution gained from his testimony. >> yeah, absolutely, nicole. look, this testimony was choppy, and it was stilted. this is not the chattiest witness i've ever seen in my life, but the prosecution got one thing that it needed, and the one thing it got that it
2:46 pm
needed is something you can also use in closing argument. that one thing is that at some point, the force that was applied by officer chauvin to george floyd was unreasonable. and here's how you use it later. it's really simple. everything else that you just saw was noise. it's really simple. in closing argument, you tell the jury, ladies and gentlemen, the one thing you do not need to surrender when you deliberate this case is your common sense. in fact, the judge will tell you to apply your common sense. so what does your common sense tell you? mr. floyd was on the ground. mr. floyd was in handcuffs. in fact, he wasn't just in handcuffs. he was handcuffed behind his back. and he wasn't just on the ground in handcuffs behind his back. he was unconscious. if you're in handcuffs on the ground behind your back and you're unconscious, and officer chauvin is still applying force to your neck with his knee, that's unreasonable. you don't need anyone to tell
2:47 pm
you that. you saw that. the state needed that little piece from this officer. it got it. everything else was noise. >> and the question that they kept going back and forth to make sure the jury understood was along the lines of this one, which i wrote down the last time they came up. if the suspect is no longer resisting, he tried to add, or no longer breathing, is there any need for force? and sergeant david pleoger, who was the police supervisor, was derek chauvin's boss, said no. channa? >> what was really significant as well about this particular witness is oftentimes when we're talking about use of force and law enforcement, people typically think about the continuum of force as escalating. what they did a very good job of pointing out is there's actually an opposite end on the same continuum. there's also de-escalation. and that's significant.
2:48 pm
because on this decision making tree, you are assessing different bits of information, but just as you can escalate force, you can also de-escalate. and i think the state was able to tease that out, and that's going to be very important for our juries because we want them to think, if that is the state, that there is this continuum of force, just as easily as he was assessing threats, he could have seen that this medical attention required a little bit more. it was more of a priority and de-escalated the force he was using. >> we are also lucky to be joined by msnbc's shaq brewster. shaq, that was a dizzying round we were coming in and out of our experts to try to understand exactly what went on, but chuck and channa have made clear that what the jury was intended to hear from the point of view of the prosecution was that derek chauvin's own boss was able to testify that once someone was in handcuffs, force was no longer necessary. to say nothing of no longer breathing or moving.
2:49 pm
>> reporter: that's exactly right. and i think that's really the headline from the testimony from derek chauvin's supervisor at the time, but i'll tell you, one other thing stuck out with me from that and it was when the supervisor testified that derek chauvin initially told him that george floyd experienced a medical emergency, that he didn't mention any use of force in his original account of what exactly happened as he was on the phone with him, and when i heard that term, medical emergency, it reminded me of something familiar, which was, that was the original term that was used by the police department when they announced what exactly happened. i want to take you back to back in may, this was the first account that we got from the police department, and they said -- they explained that the officers were reporting that -- or following up on that report of a counterfeit bill. they say they encountered george floyd and i'm going the quote here. they said he was ordered to step from his car. after he got out, he physically resisted the officers. officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted
2:50 pm
he appeared to be suffering medical distress. officers called for an ambulance. he was transported to hennepin county medical center by ambulance where he died a short time later. at no time were weapons of any type used by anyone involved in this incident. you remember that original report this incident. that report never mentioned a knee in the neck or the crowd that was there. never mentioned the fact that george floyd was on the ground for nine and a half minutes that we know now. it kind of brought me back full circle hearing that explanation that was given to the supervisor of derek chauvin because that was the original tell that was given to the public. >> joyce vance is joining us now. it seems to be opening the door a crack to the question of whether or not the prosecution may mind some of this testimony to pursue a line about intent or knowledge of bad behavior, bad conduct? i mean, it stuck out to me, too. i asked shawn about it at the time. what the supervisor testified to
2:51 pm
was a new time line. and he said that he first learned about the knee on george floyd's neck at the hospital where george floyd was pronounced dead. >> i think you're right to focus on that, nicole. that jumps out at you from this testimony. it will take a little bit more explanation to understand whether or not chauvin deliberately tried to conceal what actually happened here. and think about what's happening in real-time. this is before they know that a number of people on the sidewalk have made videotape that's going to go viral. you know, perhaps this is an opportunity to conceal what happened in the minds of the officer at that point in time. i don't think we know that for certain yet. what this may ultimately do, though, is force chauvin to make a very difficult decision when it comes time for him to decide whether or not to testify. typically defense lawyers don't want to put their client on the
2:52 pm
witness stand in a case like this. but chauvin may find himself in a box where it's a dilemma of making two choices, both of which are bad for him. >> and, chuck rosenberg, what he may have to display, i know you taught me the defense doesn't have to prove anything. but what he may have to display is a lack of being someone depraved. is that right? >> yeah. that's right. i mean, first of all, you are absolutely right, nicole. the defense doesn't have to prove anything. the burden never shifts from the prosecution to the defendant. but joyce is right. jurors want to hear from defendants. they often do not testify and they are going to want to hear from this defendant because what is really at issue here and often is in criminal cases is intent. look, we can all look at that tape. and what he did seems depraved and immoral. for a jury to decide that it's depraved, immoral and criminal, they have to find intent.
2:53 pm
and if you want to negate intent, then someone will have to explain to the jury that he didn't intend the death, that he was distracted by the crowd, that he feared for his own life. look, all of that seems ludicrous to me given what i have seen and heard so far. but that's their way out of the box that joyce just described. and the person who can do it, of course, is derek chauvin or at least the person who can try and do it. if he tries to do it, he's going to be subjected to a withering cross-examination. that's good theater. it is also the turning point, i think, of this trial if he gets on the stand. if the jury credits chauvin, they might acquit him or he might find enough jurors sympathetic so that the jury hangs and there is a mistrial. but it is a very, very tough road for him to walk given what i think is and what i see as depraved behavior and remarkable indifference to human life.
2:54 pm
>> and this is where some of our conversations today started, what the prosecution is putting together. as a non-lawyer it feels choppy. when you are a juror, whether it is choppy or not, you are watching every single piece of evidence presented to you regardless of the style points. and what they have presented to them is a host of witnesses now from all walks of life, people that were looking for snacks or cigarettes in the store, who came out and saw the conduct as depraved and the emt who was off duty who was horrified. i think he was described as beyond distressed today. you've got the paramedics who show up and now you have derek chauvin's boss who just testified in the court in front of the jury that no use of force is necessary once someone is in handcuffs and not certainly once they're nonresponsive. >> absolutely. this is an avalanche in this case when you talk about the
2:55 pm
amount of witnesses, the amount of individuals that altogether from different points of view and different vantage points came to one conscious thought. this is excessive force. this was unnecessary. and that type of avalanche can be very dangerous for the defense because the only person that can counter act that is derek chauvin. however, you have to make the assessment. once there is a death that is this emotionally charged, is anything he's going to say going to give any probative value to the case? and the truth is it is something of this nature, i don't know that there is. he can't get on the stand and say, i recognize what's happening and, you know, i'm sorry. that's not enough. and since it's not on their burden, i think it's actually more damaging for him to get on the stand than to not. >> is it your prediction that he does not testify? >> at this point in the case, yes. i do not see him taking the stand at this point.
2:56 pm
now, obviously, information changes. >> right. >> and things may change. but at this point i do not see him taking the stand. >> shaq brewster, obviously jump in on anything that's been said. but a two-part question for you. take us through what to look for for tomorrow. >> well, we know the police chief will be testifying tomorrow. that's a person who was teased, so to speak, in the opening statements on monday. and when they made those opening statements, when the prosecution laid out their case, they said the police chief will testify to how he believes that the force used by derek chauvin was excessive force. we heard a little bit of that from his commander or sergeant just today. but we'll hear from the police chief at some point tomorrow. we also know and for folks watching this trial, we also know tomorrow is expected to be a shorter day of court. the judge said that they have been getting through witnesses a little bit more quickly than expected, so we can expect only a half day in the courtroom there. what we have learned from the jurors, from the two reporters
2:57 pm
in the room who are watching the jurors and watching some of their interactions, we know that they take a lot of notes. some jurors take more notes than others. sometimes they cross reference their notes. if a witness is testifying to something that was brought up before, you will see pages flip back and they will add amendments to notes that were already taken. we also saw that, and i mentioned this a little bit before, where the images that have been shown today and we don't air them on msnbc, but the images that the jury has seen today were very graphic. we know that at some points the jury, members of the jury were reacting to it. there was a man with furrowed brows at one point. one woman put her head in her hands at one point. another woman covered her face even over the top of her mask as those images and the imagine of george floyd being rolled over on to the stretcher and the stretcher being placed into the
2:58 pm
ambulance played out. not only do you have those reactions from the jurors, but, remember, the brother of george floyd is inside the courtroom sitting there. at some point you see descriptions of him holding his stomach, looking down, avoiding the screens. even as you can hear the crowd begging and pleading for the officers to get off the neck of george floyd. so it is an emotional experience, it seems. i haven't been in, but based on the account, it seems like it is an emotional experience in that courtroom. a lot of reactions we are not seeing from the television, even as we're watching and as you see the testimony is so compelling. nicole? >> the chief of police is testifying tomorrow for the prosecution. is that normal? i mean, is that standard for the chief of police to testify in a case against one of their officers? >> it's not -- nothing about this is typical in the sense that, you know, this case seems on the surface to be so
2:59 pm
egregious. i would expect any police officer to be outraged by what officer chauvin did. i think it makes sense for the chief of police to be a witness here. the city of minneapolis, the state of minnesota needs to hear from the chief. it's not typical because normally you don't need the chief of police to say what seems so obvious to everyone else. but i think it will be impactful, nicole. >> uh-huh. >> to have the chief put their imprinter on this case. i imagine they will be asked similar questions about use of force and training. we're sort of on the cusp of hearing expert testimony. experts will be allowed to give their opinions about what happened and why. it's even possible that in a limited way the chief will be qualified as an expert. i don't know precisely what they plan to do with the chief, but i
3:00 pm
think it's important testimony and i'm looking forward to hearing it. >> we will all be watching together, watching together is what we all did today. and i thank you all for that. chuck rosenberg, thank you so much. "the beat" with ari melber starts right now. >> i want to welcome everyone to "the beat." we have the latest on joe biden's very first cabinet meeting as president. and later tonight, if you watch "the beat," you know we have been working on this. our special civil rights panel 53 years after mlk's assassination. but we begin with breaking news. this was, as nicole was just reporting, the fourth day of the chauvin trial wrapping up. chauvin's police supervisor testifying just moments ago he should have stopped using restraint. the officers should have when floyd was no longer showing any

36 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on