Chauvin failed to follow training, used ‘excessive’ force during Floyd arrest, experts testify

Los Angeles Police Sgt. Jody Stiger, the prosecution’s use-of-force expert, testified Tuesday that the force Chauvin exerted on Floyd was “excessive.”

Stiger, an aide to the Los Angeles Police Department’s inspector general and an officer with the department since 1993, said it is not typical for an officer to use “any type of force” in response to an incident involving a counterfeit bill. After reviewing all of the police body-camera footage, bystander videos, training manuals, and department policies and procedures related to the case, Stiger said, he concluded that the officers “should’ve de-escalated the situation” but instead continued to use force against Floyd.

Stiger testified that he has conducted about 2,500 use-of-force reviews in his career and trained close to 3,000 officers in use-of-force tactics.

In this case, Stiger said, the force was excessive once Floyd was put on the ground and no longer resisting. He said he saw Floyd exhibit “aggressive behavior” only once during the struggle, when Floyd kicked one of the officers grabbing him.

“Initially, when Mr. Floyd was being placed in the back seat of a vehicle, he was actively resisting the officers,” Stiger said. “However, once he was placed in the prone position on the ground, he slowly ceased resistance.”

In cross-examination, Chauvin’s defense team on Tuesday repeatedly brought up the medical training for police surrounding excited delirium, which was previously cited by Nelson as one reason for Floyd’s death.

Nelson asked Mackenzie about the syndrome that often describes someone who is either aggressive or distressed, usually from the use of drugs or a mental illness.

“What we’re usually teaching is that most of the people that are experiencing something like excited delirium, usually there’s illicit drugs on board that might be a contributing factor,” Mackenzie said.

When asked by Nelson what someone experiencing excited delirium could show in a stressful situation, the officer responded that one example would be superhuman strength.

The defense had initially brought up excited delirium during opening statements, in which “the adrenaline flowing” through Floyd’s body served as a contributing factor in his death.

At the beginning of her testimony Tuesday, an officer who provides medical aid training to authorities told prosecutors that officers are trained to immediately administer CPR if someone in their custody does not have a pulse.

“If you don’t have a pulse on a person, you’ll immediately start CPR,” Officer Nicole Mackenzie said.

When asked by prosecutors the steps officers are trained to take in CPR response, Mackenzie said that once an individual is not responsive, their training tells them to check a person’s airway, breathing and circulation.

Mackenzie repeated to the court that just because someone can talk doesn’t mean they are able to breathe.

A medical support coordinator for the Minneapolis Police Department testified that officers trained in CPR learn that a person’s ability to talk is not always related to their ability to breathe.

“Just because they’re speaking doesn’t mean they’re breathing adequately,” Officer Nicole Mackenzie told jurors after the midday recess.

Mackenzie has followed a string of police witnesses with specialties in use of force and crisis intervention who testified to ways in which Chauvin’s actions toward Floyd were out of step with department training.

Prosecutors called Mackenzie to testify to help establish that officers like Chauvin who were trained in CPR are taught to recognize the different ways a person’s breathing may be restricted — and to begin chest compressions as soon as they are unable to find a pulse.

Moments before the trial headed into recess for lunch, the defense and prosecutors offered final questions to Mercil over the role of the crowd that had gathered outside Cup Foods and whether that could have affected police in continuing to use force on Floyd.

In his cross-examination of Mercil, Nelson offered a couple examples to the use-of-force coordinator.

“If they’re cheering on and saying, ‘Good job, officer,’ that’s one consideration,” Nelson said to Mercil. “But if they’re saying, ‘I’d slap the [expletive] out of you’ or ‘You’re a [expletive]’ or ‘You’re a chump,’ would that reasonably tend to rise alarm in a police officer?”

After Mercil agreed that it would, the prosecution only had one other follow-up to Nelson’s example.

“And if they’re saying, ‘Get off him, you’re killing him,’ should the officer also take that into account and consider whether their actions need to be reassessed?” asked one of the prosecutors.

“Potentially, sir, yes,” Mercil replied.

While presenting body-cam footage from one of the officers at the scene, Nelson argued Tuesday that Chauvin was complying with police protocol when he had his knee on Floyd’s shoulder when paramedics arrived May 25.

In his cross-examination of Mercil, the use-of-force coordinator for the Minneapolis Police Department, Nelson presented an image showing a knee not on Floyd’s neck but on his shoulder in the presence of paramedics.

“It happens to be right here — that moment when the carotid artery is being palpated by the EMT,” Nelson said of the video image.

Nelson maintained that the restraint administered by Chauvin on Floyd was not a traditional chokehold and that the use of a force included situational awareness that extended beyond just Floyd.

Officers with the Minneapolis Police Department are discouraged in their training from restraining suspects by the neck, Mercil testified Tuesday.

Mercil, who trains MPD officers on the department’s use-of-force techniques, told Chauvin’s defense team that officers may use their body weight to control a resistant suspect.

“However, I will add we tell officers to stay away from the neck when possible. And if you’re going to use body weight, to pin it on their shoulder and be mindful of position,” Mercil said to Nelson during cross-examination.

Mercil is among the police witnesses for the prosecution called Tuesday to offer expertise on how Chauvin’s restraint of Floyd conflicts with department training.

In his cross-examination of Mercil, Nelson asked the use-of-force coordinator whether Chauvin administered a traditional chokehold on Floyd as defined by the Minneapolis Police Department’s language on the move.

Seeking to differentiate a chokehold from a neck restraint, Nelson referenced the department’s use-of-force training in his defense of Chauvin.

“The chokehold is defined by Minneapolis policy as specifically blocking the trachea or the airway of the suspect from the front side, correct?” he asked Mercil, who said that was correct. “So essentially, what you would kind of think of as almost strangulation, putting your hands around someone’s neck and squeezing the front of their neck?”

When Mercil confirmed that to be the case, Nelson asked the lieutenant whether he saw Chauvin perform a chokehold on Floyd during any course of the detainment May 25. Mercil replied, “No.”

Later, Nelson mentioned that holding someone in a prone position, such as Chauvin did with Floyd, was appropriate to continue to do “until the scene is safe.” Chauvin’s team has argued often that the scene at Cup Foods was a dangerous one for the officer and his colleagues.