SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Speaker 1: (01:52)
Are you familiar with the use of force continuum?
Richard Zimmerman: (01:56)
Yes.
Speaker 1: (01:57)
Is that part of the Minneapolis Police Department use of force policy?
Richard Zimmerman: (02:01)
Yes, it is.
Speaker 1: (02:02)
Can you just describe in general what that means to the jurors
Richard Zimmerman: (02:05)
Yeah. Basically, the use of force continuum is guidelines, or it’s policy actually, that we have to follow. It’s when, for instance, when you arrive at a scene, no matter what the scene, the first level, the lowest level would be just your presence at a scene, in uniform. The next step up, maybe your verbal skills that you’ve learned to help diffuse a situation or learn information about whatever the situation is. The next step would be a soft technique, escorting the person by their arm, that type of thing. The next level would be a hard technique. That’s where you would use your, you maybe have to use your mace or handcuffs, that kind of thing. Finally, the top level on the continuum is deadly force.
[...]
Speaker 1: (04:11)
Have you ever, in all the years you’ve been working for the Minneapolis Police Department been trained to kneel on the neck of someone who is handcuffed behind their back, in a prone position?
Richard Zimmerman: (04:24)
No, I haven’t.
Speaker 1: (04:27)
Is that, if that were done, would that be considered force?
Richard Zimmerman: (04:30)
Absolutely.
Speaker 1: (04:32)
What level of force might that be?
Richard Zimmerman: (04:35)
That would be the top tier, the deadly force.
Speaker 1: (04:38)
Why?
Richard Zimmerman: (04:39)
Because of the fact that if your knee is on a person’s neck, that can kill them.
[...]
Speaker 1: (05:25)
Okay. Well, let me ask you this again. If you, as an officer, according to the training, you handcuff somebody behind the back, what’s your responsibility with regard to that person from that moment on?
Richard Zimmerman: (05:47)
That person is yours. He’s your responsibility. His safety is your responsibility, his wellbeing, and is your responsibility,
Speaker 1: (06:01)
Once you handcuff somebody, does that affect the amount of force that you should consider using?
Richard Zimmerman: (06:08)
Absolutely.
Speaker 1: (06:09)
How so?
Richard Zimmerman: (06:11)
Once a person is cuffed, the threat level goes down all the way. They’re cuffed. How can they really hurt you?
Speaker 1: (06:26)
Well, certainly there could be certain circumstances when a cuffed person could still be combative?
Richard Zimmerman: (06:32)
Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. But you getting injured is way down.
Speaker 1: (06:39)
What you mean by that?
Richard Zimmerman: (06:40)
Well, if you’re, you could have some guy try to kick you or something, but you can move out of the way. That person is handcuffed, and the threat level is just not there.
Speaker 1: (06:59)
So, by handcuffing somebody you’ve taken away some of their ability to harm you?
Richard Zimmerman: (07:04)
Absolutely.
Speaker 1: (07:08)
If somebody who is handcuffed becomes less combative, does that change the amount of force that an officer is to use under policy?
Richard Zimmerman: (07:19)
Yes.
Speaker 1: (07:21)
How so?
Richard Zimmerman: (07:23)
Well, if they become less combative, you may just have them sit down on the curb or, the idea is to calm the person down. if they are not a threat to you at that point, you try to help them, so that they’re not as upset as they may have been in the beginning.
Speaker 1: (08:01)
In your 30 years of training with the Minneapolis Police Department, and your experience, have you been trained on the prone position?
Richard Zimmerman: (08:15)
Yes.
Speaker 1: (08:17)
What has your training been, specific to the prone position?
Richard Zimmerman: (08:23)
Well, once you secure or handcuff a person, you need to get them out of the prone position as soon as possible, because it restricts their breathing.
Speaker 1: (08:38)
When you handcuff somebody behind their back … well, as part of training, have you been handcuffed behind the back?
Richard Zimmerman: (08:44)
Yes.
Speaker 1: (08:46)
Have you been trained on what happens to individuals when they’re handcuffed behind the back?
Richard Zimmerman: (08:52)
Yes.
Speaker 1: (08:52)
So, when somebody is handcuffed behind their back, how does it affect them physically?
Richard Zimmerman: (08:57)
It stretches the muscles back through your chest, and it makes it more difficult to breathe.
Speaker 1: (09:07)
If you put somebody in the prone position … Well, is it well-known this danger of putting somebody in the prone position?
Speaker 5: (09:16)
Sustained.
Speaker 1: (09:17)
How long have you had training on the dangers of the prone position, as part of a Minneapolis Police Officer?
Richard Zimmerman: (09:24)
For, since 1985.
Speaker 1: (09:30)
Is it part of your training regularly to learn about keeping somebody in the prone position?
Richard Zimmerman: (09:36)
Yes.
Speaker 1: (09:37)
What has the training band with regard to the prone position?
Richard Zimmerman: (09:41)
Once a person is cuffed, you need to turn them on their side or have them sit up. You need to get them off their chest.
Speaker 1: (09:51)
Why?
Richard Zimmerman: (09:52)
Because of the, as I had mentioned earlier, your muscles are pulling back when you’re handcuffed, and if you’re laying on your chest, that’s constricting your breathing even more.
Speaker 1: (10:14)
In your training as a Minneapolis Police Officer, are you provided with training on medical intervention?
Richard Zimmerman: (10:23)
Yes.
Speaker 1: (10:24)
I assume you’re not taught to be paramedics, but you receive some level of training?
Richard Zimmerman: (10:29)
Yeah. We’re first responders I think, is what our category would be.
Speaker 1: (10:33)
Does that include doing what we think of a CPR, chest compressions?
Richard Zimmerman: (10:37)
Yes.
Speaker 1: (10:38)
How often is that part of your training?
Richard Zimmerman: (10:42)
CPR? It’s every other year or so.
Speaker 1: (10:47)
As part of your training within the Minneapolis Police Department policies, is there an obligation to provide medical intervention when necessary?
Richard Zimmerman: (10:57)
Absolutely.
Speaker 1: (10:58)
What is the general teaching that you get with regard to medical intervention?
Richard Zimmerman: (11:04)
Well, again, it’s been that you need to provide medical care for a person that is in distress.
Speaker 1: (11:16)
Would that be true, even if you’ve called an ambulance to come to the scene?
Richard Zimmerman: (11:20)
Yeah, absolutely. The ambulance will get there in whatever amount of time, and in that time period, you need to provide medical assistance before they arrive.
TL;DR: The first quote establishes that there is a policy guideline, the "force continuum" for use and escalation of force. The second quote establishes that kneeling on a prone person is not official policy and it is considered the top level of deadly force in the "force continuum".
Finally, the meat of the testimony is in the final quote which establishes:
1. Police are responsible for people they handcuff and are required to give first aid medical care - even if an ambulance is called, should the person need it.
2. Handcuffed people are considered to be much lower threat because of the constraint and official policy is to use lower force on a handcuffed person.
3. Training is to move a handcuffed person from the prone position because of the breathing difficulties the position causes.
While it remains to be seen how these policies were enforced, I am reminded of people early on claiming this sort of thing is proper police procedure. Well, now we see it's not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @02:27PM (19 children)
How do you establish "beyond reasonable doubt" that hypoxia is not caused by fentanyl and meth? If we're prosecuting felony murder, and it can be established Morries Hall [lawandcrime.com] supplied the drugs in Floyd's toxology report, should he not be held to the same standard as Chauvin? Did the fake bill belong to Floyd or Hall?
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 06 2021, @05:35PM (2 children)
A video of the guy being choked out for nine minutes, I'm guessing....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @05:42PM (1 child)
Is that why the prosecution wants to toss the autopsy? [jonathanturley.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday April 06 2021, @08:49PM
For a real world example of the problem in action, a Utah detective illegally arrested [wikipedia.org] a nurse because she prevented him from taking a blood sample from a truck driver who had been put into a coma (and would later die) as a result of a high speed chase by police officers (the fleeing subject ran into the truck). So why would the police need a blood sample from an innocent guy who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? If they could show that Gray was driving while impaired, it'd help reduce their liability in this case. Given that the police officer in question blatantly broke the law, he may have been willing to break the law further by deliberately tainting the blood sample as well.
At the time the official autopsy was performed, the conflict of interest would have been to reduce liability for the police officers and the city. After the decision to try the police officers, reducing liability for their actions would have no longer been in the interest of anyone in the city government. Any bias in the official autopsy would then be working against the city's interests.
I think a similar game was played by the second, private autopsy which didn't do blood work and thus, wouldn't have been able to undermine its own conclusions, should the levels of fen and meth be as high as claimed by the official autopsy.
But one doesn't need any of this to show criminal negligence. A man died under the control of these police officers. Aside from calling 911 partway in, they didn't do anything to help, not even change a dangerous hold that likely contributed to Floyd's death. None of Floyd's actions justify this callous indifference to human life.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 06 2021, @06:39PM (14 children)
Sorry, but it just doesn't matter.
Let's have ourselves a bank robbery. Some number of people, let's make it six, are involved. We meet resistance in the bank, and some people are shot.
One of our guys shoots two people. One of our guys shoots one other person. The other three guys inside the bank, and the getaway driver don't shoot anyone.
So now - we're caught, we sit around forever, and go through all sorts of pretrial hearings, and finally our trials. The group is definitely found guilty of 3 murders.
The question is, how many am I guilty of? I didn't pull the trigger. How many are you guilty of? You didn't pull the trigger.
The answer is, you are guilty of three murders, and I am also guilty of three murders. Our criminal actions resulted in, or at least contributed to, three murders. You're going away, and so am I.
This is the situation Chauvin is in. His negligent actions resulted in, or contributed to a death. Worse than that, his actions appear to maybe be criminal. Two supervisors have testified that Chauvin was never trained to restrain a suspect in the manner that he used. The jury has to decide whether his actions were indeed criminal, and not merely negligent.
I've got him on the negligence. I'm undecided on the criminal part, but I'm leaning that way pretty strongly.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:04PM (1 child)
Yep, definitely going away for the negligence.
Second degree murder is harder to prove but it you criminally assault someone and they die from it you're guilty. It seem to this layman that we've established that pretty strongly but who knows...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 06 2021, @09:42PM
That old demon "qualified immunity" may try to get into the dispute. Cops (rightfully) can do things that you and I can't do. I think QI has been dismissed in this case, but there will be appeals, yada yada yada. And, if the jury gets it into their heads that QI covers it, well, there won't ever be an appeal.
The negligence is really the best shot. It should be easy for almost any jury to convict on that. I really don't think QI applies to negligence.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:50PM (10 children)
Yes. [lawandcrime.com] EMTs drove a block before attempting to resuscitate Floyd because of the
professionalhostile crowd, are we going to prosecute them too?(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 06 2021, @08:07PM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 06 2021, @09:34PM (8 children)
That's the way it's been taught since at least 1980. Our instructor made it very clear that you can't help anyone, if you're not protecting yourself. In this particular case, the EMTs got clear of the hostile crowd before they did anything. Good on them. They didn't kill anyone, so why would you want to prosecute them?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @11:40PM (7 children)
> They didn't kill anyone, so why would you want to prosecute them?
We want to prosecute the crowd and the alleged drug dealer under the same standard as Chauvin.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 06 2021, @11:56PM
You can have the dealer. I saw absolutely nothing wrong with the conduct of the crowd standing around the police car. You can't have them.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 07 2021, @01:08AM (5 children)
What has the crowd and alleged drug dealer done that warrant prosecution? Crowds don't sound like they were breaking any laws, and nobody has complained about the quality of the product that Floyd received. Meanwhile Chauvin at the least completely ignored Floyd's health condition while constraining him, and let him die. That's not anyone else's responsibility.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @01:33AM (4 children)
The other officers were on crowd control, you don't think the cops may have called medics earlier if they didn't have to deal with the crowd? [mn.gov] So if we're going for felony murder [wikipedia.org] why not go all the way?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 07 2021, @04:25AM (3 children)
Of course not - it doesn't take a lot of effort to call medics and Chauvin was right there aware of Floyd.
In fact, without witnesses present, it might have taken a lot longer to call the medics. I remain suspicious due to Chauvin and Floyd working [snopes.com] in the same place for most of 2019 - a fact which Minneapolis police apparently remain incurious about. If Floyd and Chauvin were working for the same criminal enterprise, then Floyd's erratic behavior would give motive for first degree murder of Floyd.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @05:22AM (2 children)
They are incurious because that fact is orthogonal to the city's plan to bury him. And that is driven by political considerations that Antifa will go on a rampage if Chauvin doesn't get convicted of murder.
Likewise, Chauvin's defense probably won't bring it up, because it's not going to be absolutely helpful to his case. It remains something that outsiders like me are interested in.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 07 2021, @07:08AM (1 child)
Political considerations. Do you believe that unnecessary death, caused by cops, is a political thing? Or, is it more of a right and wrong issue?
I've banged away on the idea of "law enforcement officers" vs "peace officers" before. It seems that more than 75% of police view themselves as LEOs, rather than POs. Look at the sort of names they attach to their news outlets and other communications - https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/ [lawenforcementtoday.com] I don't believe there is anything like PeaceOfficerTimes.org.
Too many people watch too much television. Those people have been brainwashed for thousands of hours into accepting that the cop is always right, and the average "civilian" can't really comprehend a cop's job. Give it up, it's not a "political" thing.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @08:23AM
Politics is always a factor. Evil is tolerated by those in power when it is politically expedient to do so and power is always attractive to abusers. As long as they can deny, call it an 'isolated incident', or otherwise shift the blame then nothing gets done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @02:09AM
Judge Runaway1956 in da Court!
As much as he loves to watch TV Judges, we have been warned before about Runaway legal device! He not only does not know the law, he does not know how much rice is in China, or where FatPhil lives (Estonia is where). Some where on SN, there is a list of things Runaway does not know. And now he is pronouncing judgment on murder trial? At least we know how Runaway leans, and at least he won't be able to get that gender-re-ass-ingment surgery in Arkansas, any more.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 06 2021, @08:04PM
I'll admit that the prosecution's case here is pretty weak, especially since they're asking the jury to disregard [jonathanturley.org] the official autopsy. OTOH, criminal negligence doesn't require the death to caused by the neck hold or that Floyd is innocent of things like counterfeiting or drug use.
Sounds like Floyd had more [msn.com] of these bills and made some attempt to hide them.