Derek Chauvin murder trial (Police officer who arrested George Floyd)

[dowie]

***This thread is intended to be for discussion of the trial (and aspects of the incident, people involved relevant to the trial), it's not intended to be about any previous or future protests/civil unrest or broader discussions of other incidents involving US police forces.***

The trial is starting today - or at least the jury selection aspect, apparently the prosecution can object to up to 9 jurers and the defence up to 15.

Chauvin is charged with second-degree murder (originally he was charged with third-degree murder by a local prosecutor then the charge was upgraded when the state AG took over) and second-degree manslaughter. There are arguments, perhaps to be steeled today re: whether a third-degree murder charge can also apply too.

Obviously, this is a highly publicised case and there are arguments that he can't get a fair trial locally, so possibly the trial could be moved too - though so far the judge seems to have said that the same applies anywhere in the US, it's hard to have escaped this incident.

The trial will be televised, this is going to be bigger than the OJ Simpson trial potentially. the prosecution had objected to this but the judge is allowing it. I do wonder if the person who performed the autopsy will get a bit of flack as his evidence is going to be pretty key here.

IMO, if it wasn't for the fact this is so political with all the coverage and resources are thrown at it, I'd be quite skeptical about the prospects of a conviction - but... it looks like Chauvin was worried enough that he was prepared to accept a plea deal with 10 years in prison and 3rd-degree murder! But that was rejected.

Key bit of reporting that has often been missed in the press coverage is the drugs issue and the fact that Floyd had breathing difficulties before he was even put on the floor - was already saying "I can't breathe" when in the police car. On the other hand, Chauvin does hear from Floyd himself that he's having difficulties specifically with the knee on his neck - that could be the bit of dialogue that caused the charges to be upgraded to 2nd-degree murder. To complicate things though, the knee on the neck is covered in their police dept training manual.

Recent BBC article, doesn't mention the drugs:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56270334

Washington post article, but more detailed/thorough:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/07/derek-chauvin-trial-george-floyd/

 

[dowie]

Jury selection was delayed today as there is an appeal at the state supreme court over whether or not a third-degree murder charge can still apply - apparently the prosecution think this is relevant re: jury selection (AFAIK this gets super tactical in the US) as I guess having this charge present gives a kind of better fall back option than manslaughter should the second-degree murder charge not stick.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56325773

A US judge has delayed jury selection in the case of an ex-Minneapolis police officer accused of killing George Floyd, an unarmed black man, last May.

Derek Chauvin faces murder charges for kneeling on Mr Floyd's neck for over seven minutes in a widely-viewed video that sparked protests worldwide.

The delay came as the judge awaits an appeals court decision on whether a new murder charge can be added.

BBC has this slightly wrong in the above- this has already been heard by an appeal court - it's the state supreme court they're waiting on now.

"I can't breathe"

Could be a lie, he was fighting the police just prior.

Its not like he was an outstanding citizen with no reason to be believed...

Well that isn't something that the defence are allowed to bring up at the moment, their application to mention his previous crimes - threatening a pregnant woman with a gun during a house break-in won't be something the jury can hear.

On the other hand, the prosecution present them with details of Chauvin's previous complaints and has arranged some witnesses who have had previous encounters with him - I'm assuming they're not going to be too complimentary about him - though to be fair it does seem like he's the sort of cop who should have been sacked a while ago!

They need to remove knees on necks, and frankly anything to do with necks, from the American police handbook. How many deaths will make that clear?

They probably do but tbh.. it isn't actually all that clear that it caused the death here. I know it sounds counter-intuitive as we all saw him saying I can't breathe and the knee on the neck but he was saying that before he was even on the floor and he had a heart issue and a load of drugs in him - the problem the prosecution has is that the defence will put emphasis on that - note the medical examiner's comments from the article in the OP:

According to notes filed as evidence, the medical examiner told prosecutors that if Floyd had been “found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes,” it would have been “acceptable” to call his death an overdose. But, Baker added, “I am not saying this killed him.”

^^^ that is where the reasonable doubt comes in - they have a knee on the neck and the "I can't breathe", but the "I can't breathe" was shouted out before he was even on the ground and the drugs, heart problem, recent Covid infection etc.. mean they don't know for sure whether the knee on the neck killed him or whether his increased heart rate/panic etc.. combined with those other factors caused his death anyway.

IIRC even in the US it's banned in many areas but the police have got away with it because apparently if it's unsafe to do it with the knee it's unreasonable for an officer to assume that doing it with other parts of their leg is also unsafe, but then the way the US law protects police offices means that effectively they're deemed too stupid to understand what they're doing (as it's been ruled many times that unless they're trained specifically not to do something that any normal person would understand is dangerous/illegal, they're fine).

The complication here is that it seems it is permitted in this part of the US and is featured in the training materials for this particular police force, he's following his training etc.. is what the defence will likely argue.

 

[dowie]

One dead white man doesn’t make the whole thing not-racist. I’m most opposed to the fact that American police seems to regularly kill people.

What is it with racists in this forum being worried about the agenda against them? We should be eradicating racism, no propping it up.

I'm not sure anyone has demonstrated that there was any racism in this incident or the other one someone has dropped in. The issue is more one of whether the police went too far or didn't do enough when the suspect had medical difficulties.

It blew up in the press as a result of perceptions of racism - the suspect happens to be black and there were three white police officers and one black police officer involved but it would be rather a lazy/flawed argument to simply claim "racism" every time a black person dies during a police encounter.

 

[dowie]

y'know if the average american jury filling public is anything like the state of this thread no wonder he tried to put in a plea.

why was that denied anyway? isn't the whole point of a plea meant to cut out the whole court-based shenanigans?

It's purely political - remember prosecutors are elected and accountable to voters. So on one hand, if it weren't for all the publicity and obvious resources being thrown at this case you'd probably not have had the plea deal being considered in the first place as Chauvin's team would be less worried about his chances however a lot of the media and the public are out for blood and so the prosecutor needs to try to really nail for 2nd degree murder Chauvin not just settle for some 10 year deal.

The silly thing is the local prosecutor saw the risks, he delayed even charging them initially as there were obvious risks (meanwhile the city went ahead and sacked all four officers without due process) and was criticized for it, he initially only went with a third-degree murder charge but it was the state AG who took over at the request of the state governor and upgraded the charge. Won't be good for them if the current appeal doesn't also allow for a third-degree murder charge and they fail to make the second-degree charge stick - especially if they do get a manslaughter conviction and/or it is perceived that perhaps 3rd degree might have worked (of course this is all moot if there is a not-guilty verdict on both).

 

[dowie]

Bit of detail on the appeal re: the third degree murder charge here:

https://apnews.com/article/derek-ch...ge-explained-5e7c935f560219caee61fcc0bef0a23d

WHY WAS THAT CHARGE DISMISSED TO BEGIN WITH?

Chauvin’s lawyer sought to dismiss the charge, arguing there was not probable cause to charge him with third-degree murder. A Minnesota judge ruled last October that third-degree murder under Minnesota law requires proof that someone’s conduct was “eminently dangerous to others,” plural, not just to Floyd. The judge said there was no evidence that Chauvin endangered anyone else and threw out the charge. Prosecutors appealed.

Also they do allude to the risks re: this trial:

WHY PUSH TO HAVE IT ADDED AGAIN?

Very simply, reinstating the count could i ncrease the prosecution’s odds of getting a murder conviction in what will be one of the highest-profile police trials in the U.S.

CAN HE BE CONVICTED WITHOUT IT?

Yes. But it’s not going to be as easy as some might think. Even with the bystander video that showed Chauvin pressing his knee into George Floyd’s neck and ignoring the man’s pleas, legal experts say the case isn’t a slam dunk.

“It’s hard not to watch the video and conclude that the prosecutors will not have any trouble with this case,” said Susan Gaertner, the former head prosecutor in neighboring Ramsey County. “But it’s not that simple.”

The trial will come down to two key questions: Did Chauvin’s actions cause Floyd’s death, and were his actions reasonable?

The second-degree murder charge requires prosecutors to prove Chauvin caused Floyd’s death while committing or trying to commit a felony — in this case, third-degree assault. Prosecutors don’t have to prove that Chauvin was the sole cause of Floyd’s death — only that his conduct was a “substantial causal factor.” The manslaughter charge has a lower bar, requiring proof that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death through negligence that created an unreasonable risk, and consciously took the chance of causing severe injury or death.

If they only have the second-degree murder charge and manslaughter then manslaughter (or indeed a not guilty verdict) looks to be far more likely than second-degree murder.

First few jurors have been selected too:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56341895

The first juror selected, a chemist in his 20s or 30s, described himself as "logical" and passionate about his work. He had not seen the video of Floyd's death, he said.

The second juror, a biracial woman in her 20s, said she had seen the video only once and was eager to hear all the evidence as a juror.

The third juror, an auditor, said that he would also examine guilt or innocence only from what is presented in the trial. All three swore to keep an open mind and weigh all the proof presented in determining the outcome of the high-profile case.

 

[dowie]

So they found white powder in the back of squad car 320 but it wasn't initially allowed into evidence due to it could've been anything. Turns out the defence had it tested and it's methamphetamine and fentanyl mixed with the DNA of old George himself, implying he did the exact same thing as he did in his previous arrests, i.e. attempting to swallow his drugs. Then the defence matched the drug residue from the squad car with tablets found in George's car and what do you know, exact same chemical composition. And then just for ***** and giggles, it's also the same chemical composition as those drugs found inside him during his autopsy.

Well, he was already high when he tried passing the apparent fake $20 bill over in the shop - shop worked thought he was drunk/out of it... those existing drugs in his system will probably be pointed at by the defence but if they can argue he's swallowed more still in a panic at being stopped by the police then that's probs a good angle for them. Some websluth types seemed to think the video shows supports him swallowing something IIRC.

In other news though this is good for the prosecution - third-degree murder charge is permitted so they'll have a shot if the second-degree charge misses:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1370173946943975426

 

[dowie]

Remember there was an autopsy conducted for the family which came to a different conclusion - looks like it won't be used in the trial:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1369016060242956288

I guess it was perhaps more useful for a civil case by the family against the city - get a nice 7 figure pay out etc... This guy would presumably not do well under cross-examination if they actually called him as a witness as it seems that his contradictory conclusion vs the official autopsy was based on the video footage... and some dubious reasoning re: causality whereby because Floyd stopped breathing then the death was due to asphyxia... which is a bit backwards.

This is the same guy who contributed to the Epstein conspiracies - though the press were generally a bit more critical of his findings there.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/why-to-be-skeptical-of-michael-baden-on-epsteins-death.html

The October 30 opinion of Michael Baden, the forensic pathologist hired by Epstein’s brother, that the manner of death “points to homicide rather than suicide,” contradicting the conclusion of the Office of Chief Medical Examiner

I guess if you have a family member die in the US with the possible involvement of the authorities then maybe this is the guy to go to for an opinion to contradict an official autopsy.

 

[dowie]

$27 MILLION

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56381722

I mean that's pretty political, the local politicians want to be able to virtue signal over this lest they be called racist, so they're hardly going to try and barter it down too low an amount, it needs to be a larger than usual payout. Taxpayers in that city have some reasonable questions here though and it's not as though this payoff will stop rioting.

The medical examiner hired by the family has done his job though... won't be hearing from him in the trial mind but his conclusions presented in this civil case have been reported on.

I’m pretty sure Chauvin will walk.
[...]
The initial video was horrible optics, but that's it.

In normal circumstances for sure, in this trial with all the resources put into it and the publicity/tension surrounding it then there is a fair amount of uncertainty. I guess they are being careful with jury selection and I think 2nd degree murder is a complete reach but 3rd degree or manslaughter is on the cards here.

 

[dowie]

I can’t find it now but I’ve seen a photo of the literal handbook explaining and illustrating the technique. The photo from the book was exactly what Chauvin did.

I think the most he could be accused of is some kind of negligence, as the technique is supposed to be short-term and released when the detainee becomes compliant.

There’s also rumours of some tax related charges. In a case like this that usually means they’re struggling to get someone on the main charges.

Tax charges are separate and AFAIK they can't be mentioned in this trial... I did also hear that Geroge's prior convictions/arrests can't be mentioned either - so a history of swallowing drugs etc.. can't be brought up for example.

Yes, the police handbook does seem to have that technique in with a specific picture. I don't believe he was restricting his breathing as it would have taken much less time than 9 minutes - I reckon the sort of holds hurfdurf is super keen to demonstrate on people would have them tapping out or unconscious much sooner that than ergo rather moot other than as an illustration of them being a bad comparison here.

I'm open to the notion that perhaps during the process of holding him down there were periods where the knee made breathing difficult but then again, it's quite plausible that it was only pushing down a bit to hold him in position, we don't know that his full body weight was on the knee (very unlikely that it was). It certainly does seem to be an approved technique they're trained to use:

here is the picture from the Minneapolis Police training manual:

Note they mention sudden cardiac arrest as a risk there (and that is quite plausibly what happened here), they also note to call EMS to get them on scene - the officers did do that - they'd already called for paramedics early on re: the cut Floyd suffered during the faffing about trying to get him into a police vehicle initially but also placed a second call once they had to restrain to upgrade the urgency of the call.

and some comments from a thread detailing an earlier court motion by another officer (Lane):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1280913423912574977

 

[dowie]

I’m sure there are better ways to restrain someone than a knee to the neck, ******* hell!

I'm sure there are, but for the purpose of this discussion re: the trial it's literally what they were trained to do - is the blame to be placed on the officer or is a lot of the blame on the institution he was working for and their training/procedures.

The rookie cop (of which there were two) also cited his training/procedures in the motion his lawyer filed.

For the rookies this seems to have been especially bad, they weren't the ones with a knee on the neck and one of them questioned it a couple of times but (presumably, as it was an authorised technique) accepted the answer from Chauvin, an officer with many years experience who was supervising them - that same rookie cop performed CPR on Floyd in the ambulance yet he was sacked by the city and is now facing trial as an accomplice. I don't see how it is particularly fair for either of them to face charges here, to have been fired or to have their pictures plastered nationwide, it was weak leadership and caving to the mob on the part of the city.

There is a valid case to answer for the main officer involved, the subject of this thread, for at least two of the other three (if not all three tbh..) I don't see why they're not still employed and/or were simply subject to an investigation here - they would quite clearly have been if this weren't such a huge story and powerful people in their city felt they had to be seen to do something.

 

[dowie]

In Derek's case an white jury still may not be impartial as unconscious bias is an actual thing that's been shown in study groups so in a high profile case like it's important you get a jury that's made up of a genuine cross section of society.

Unconscious bias is a dubious and often ill-defined area, anyone is going to have certain biases re: what is or isn't reasonable or likely to be true etc.. simply based on life experience.

What society do you mean? Locally or nationally? The jury pool is drawn from Hennepin County which is largely white - white non-Hispanic being the biggest group:

https://datausa.io/profile/geo/hennepin-county-mn#demographics

THE 3 LARGEST ETHNIC GROUPS IN HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN

1. White (Non-Hispanic)
   861k ± 1.46k
2. Black or African American (Non-Hispanic)
   167k ± 4.01k
3. Asian (Non-Hispanic)
   89.5k ± 2.31k

6.97%
HISPANIC POPULATION
87.8k people
In 2018, there were 5.15 times more White (Non-Hispanic) residents (861k people) in Hennepin County, MN than any other race or ethnicity. There were 167k Black or African American (Non-Hispanic) and 89.5k Asian (Non-Hispanic) residents, the second and third most common ethnic groups.

6.97% of the people in Hennepin County, MN are hispanic (87.8k people).

The following chart shows the 7 races represented in Hennepin County, MN as a share of the total population.

The jury will probably not be too far off the above if selected properly - neither the defence nor the prosecution can use race etc.. to disqualify the jurors though I guess they can try to find excuses.

 

[dowie]

Following training is not a defence against breaking the law.

That's a rather flawed statement surely - if they were following the correct training procedures then are they necessarily breaking the law?

It's not a defence against breaking the law, it's a defence against the charge that they broke the law in the first place!

I mean they're also trained to shoot people - often someone shooting another person dead in the street is breaking the law, not necessarily if you're a police officer though and the law permits you to carry a firearm and use it within certain scenarios, according to your training.

If they can argue that what they did is consistent with their training then why wouldn't that be a reasonable part of a defence here?

 

[dowie]

Regarding your comment above about them following their training, is that not the same statement that was usde by many Germans in WW2? They should question the morality of what they're doing at the time, and if it's found wanting, they could well have intervened.

Not really, I'm not sure what relevance WW2 has here?

As for morality, they were dealing with a guy who was clearly wasted and behind the vehicle of a car - of course they're going to arrest him.

The order or training could be illegal. The person following that order or training is culpable.

Not necessarily, no. And anyway we're not dealing with some hypothetical here we have a specific example, the police are supposed to arrest suspects involved in crimes and there is guidance on how to do so.

Training guidelines also isn't the law. Hopefully they have taken the law into account when creating it.

So what law or laws do those guidelines break?

They didn't pay out $27m for the sake of it. In a civil court they would have lost, i.e. the officers more likely acted illegally than not.

It's dubious to draw any conclusions from that pay out for pretty obvious reasons.

 

[dowie]

It was morally correct to arrest him. It was morally incorrect to the continue to torture a fully restrained person. Especially as that torture then led or at least contributed to his death.

Did you really confuse simply arresting someone with using dubious techniques to cause pain and compliance that led to death? When we already have police officers and myself pointing out how unnecessary it was?

It might well have been unnecessary but you don't know that those techniques did cause much pain or lead to his death. You're just throwing in hyperbole when talking about "torture" here.

The point though, again, is that this particular technique is what they're trained to use. I don't doubt that techniques vary between police forces, that some bystanders cried out is pretty irrelevant.

 

[dowie]

In this case obviously manslaughter. Restraining someone is one thing, killing them using that method of restraint is a complete other thing. Numerous other people have been a victim of the same form of killing in police hands.

They were also well aware of the fact he needed to be hospitalised when they called for an ambulance minutes beforehand, yet continued to choke the man to death. If you view the footage closely you can see Chauvin pushing firmly in his pocket to further reduce GF's airflow further.

Manslaughter requires someone to die surely? I was asking about the technique in general not the specific incident, we already know what the officers have been charged with.

As for continuing to choke him, that isn't clear at all - I think they probably should have started CPR sooner but as for the use of the technique, I wasn't there and I don't know how much force was actually applied. It's, again, a technique that they've been trained to use - that city/police department has approved it knowing it has risks. We don't know that the technique itself was the cause here though.

They used to work at the same nightclub as security. It's highly possible they had a run in and Chauvin decided to enact some revenge of sorts. Chauvin and his partner also have plenty of form for killing civilians.

That's getting into conspiracies and is conflating their roles here - Floyd worked as a bouncer inside the club, Chauvin worked shifts as a police officer outside - clubs could pay for a police vehicle to be deployed outside so they'd be available to be called upon - they don't directly employ the police officers, it's via the police force AFAIK - they're just making sure they have an easy response time and a visible deterrent to trouble makers etc...

It's possible they did recognise each other but neither seems to acknowledge that in the video AFAIK - I've not seen any footage or dialogue along those lines.

 

[dowie]

Remember these are the officers we are talking about.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/28/us/minneapolis-officer-complaints-george-floyd/index.html

A single police officer routinely has 18 complaints that reach internal affairs?

I've noticed people try to go on about the victims character. Seems this is relevant by the same token.

Well yeah as already mentioned - those past complaints will be allowed at the trial, the past convictions/arrests of Floyd won't be.

Two of the officers were rookies though on their first patrol, it seems ridiculous that they're caught up in this tbh...

 

[dowie]

But it's not just one man is it? It's part of a wider pattern of oppression of people of colour.

I can see why people might think that, based on the stories the media tends to focus on but in reality it doesn't seem to be the case, for example re: police shootings:

https://www.city-journal.org/reflections-on-race-riots-and-police?

You know in the same report

"Hennepin County Medical Examiner Andrew Baker will be a central figure. He ruled Floyd’s death a homicide, saying he died when his heart stopped as police restrained him, compressing his neck."

The report basically says it was a combination of factors which led to his death. Including the actions of the police officer.

It isn't clear what you're quoting from there but note, as per the article in the OP the medical examiner also says:

According to notes filed as evidence, the medical examiner told prosecutors that if Floyd had been “found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes,” it would have been “acceptable” to call his death an overdose. But, Baker added, “I am not saying this killed him.”

If there is reasonable doubt there then...

 

[dowie]

Lol. Gang culture, tribalism and crime?

Wow, you have no clue about what happened here. He allegedly paid with a fake $20 note. That was it.

No, that wasn't it. Why are you deliberately ignoring the drugs and the fact he was totally wasted and behind the wheel of a car when they found him, I pointed this out in a post you were quoted in earlier today.

If it was just a $20 note they wouldn't necessarily need to arrest him, wasted behind the wheel of a car though and they pretty much have to.

But that isn't what happened. If nothing else was involved then obviously it would have to bs an OD. Someone doesn't just drop dead.

It's a meaningless statement.

If I'm found dead after taking some kind of drug then it is obviously a reaction to that drug. But people aren't all dying instantly after taking drugs.

It's not meaningless though, the poiitn is that he might well have died form the drugs regardless - or indeed have died from a combination of the drugs and being arrested/restrained before we even get into the knee on the neck. The arrest itself panicked him, caused anxiety.

The point here should be obvious - the defence have that statement from the medical examiner which gives some reasonable doubt.

 

[dowie]

Someone died here so the chokehold is the issue. Other people have died from the same chokehold. It is a chokehold they're trained to use, they shouldn't be though because choking people kills people. People have died throughout the US because of unnecessary use of this chokehold.

Some obvious flaws here - firstly just because someone died here doesn't mean the knee on neck was necessarily the issue given we know about the other complications.

Secondly that the knee on neck poses risks to people it is used on doesn't negate that it can be used (likewise tasers and batons can post a risk to life when used even if generally considered to be non-lethal).

People relating this case to race and complaining 'no one made a fuss about a white men being choked to death' are racist idiots. Numerous other black men have been choked to death by police for no reason, see Elijah Mcclain and Eric Garner. 2 black men commiting no crime at all, being subdued and choked to death by police officers.

That's naive, I'd say people putting across that view are both suffering from confirmation bias via the media reporting focusing on those sorts of case and just basic innumeracy re: the stats. For any anecdotes re: black people being killed by the police or dying while being arrested by the police you'll find egregious examples of white people being killed too. The figures aren't particularly skewed to any given group if you look at actual crime rates or consider police encounters.

Simply citing a couple of cherry-picked examples that have received coverage doesn't make for the strong argument you seem to think it does, it's emotive nonsense that doesn't stand up to reason.

Also you seemingly don't understand what a conspiracy is. My theory about Chauvin having a professional issue with GF is just that. A conspiracy involves multiple people. From what I've read Chauvin was hired directly and not through the police department. So I'm pretty sure you're wrong there.

Semantics. We can do that if you like - you're not "pretty sure" if you're basing a claim on vague recollections of what you've read or at least it's a silly position to take. And it isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis, you don't understand what a theory is.

There we go, that was constructive. Though to get back on topic, you're wrong. It's not some side job unconnected with the police department, they were working as uniformed police officers hired off duty complete with the cop car etc.. Floyd worked as a bouncer inside the club, Chauvin was uniformed police outside the club and/or sat in a patrol car, they are different roles. Some accounts do claim they knew each other, the footage itself doesn't give any indication.

 

[dowie]

If they'd tasered Floyd and he'd died from that I'd be willing to bet that it would not have got the same media attention.

[...]

My suspicion is strongly that it was the symbolic image of a white man with his knee on a black mans neck that was the trigger for this. In a country that is heavily primed to spot and exaggerate issues of race and has a long history of race hysteria especially with the myth of the white men keeping black men down and oppressed. The rage about this is mostly emotional it's not born out in statistics or anything like that, otherwise there would be a far bigger reaction to other forms of deadly law enforcement which are objectively worse but that people just accept as generally fine.

I think that's pretty clear and I suspect the people making arguments about the fact this was in their training wasn't a defence wouldn't advocate that police should say avoid using tasers entirely even if issued and authorised to use them in some circumstances or ponder that perhaps tasers themselves are somehow illegal.

It's also pretty clear why this case got the hype and media attention it got - the symbolism isn't great, the knee on the neck which might well have been a fairly mild amount of force is being taken as the thing that definitely caused the death here when simply being restrained on the ground (for his own safety) without a knee on his neck while they waited for an ambulance + the drugs + his obvious anxiety/panic could have lead to the same result regardless.

The police officers were saints (let's ignore the 18 internal affairs complaints against chauvin and the many more against the others) though working in very difficult conditions. It's fine for them to use excessive force resulting in a death as judged by the county medical examiner. I don't get this [*******] defense. Shouldn't be a police officer if they can't act lawfully without having to be given leeway.

You seem to be unaware that that is a racist/antisemitic slur you're using there btw...

The medical examiner hasn't claimed they've used excessive force, better to stick to facts he concluded:

"cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression"

If they can justify the use of the (apparently, approved) restraint then Chauvin might well get a not guilty verdict.