Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Journal by khallow
Derek Chauvin's murder trial is underway for the killing of George Floyd back in 2020. We have this enlightening testimony from a Lieutenant Richard Zimmerman of the Minneapolis Police Department. I believe "speaker 1" is the prosecutor in the trial ("speaker 4" may be defense and "speaker 5" may be the judge in the case). The number in parentheses is the time on the video associated with this transcript.

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.

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Comment Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday April 09 2021, @08:45AM (4 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Friday April 09 2021, @08:45AM (#1135237) Homepage
    Whilst I share neither ends, nor means, with khallow, as much as I understand his position, I do not see an out-of-control police force to be one of the ingredients in his recipe for a well-functioning society. So it's at least a non-contradictory position he's expressing here, and, to be honest, more like the opposite - a well regulated police force seems very in line with his ideals, again with caveats.

    I know it's nice to take a stab at khallow for most of his societal perspectives, but I think this one is unwarranted.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 09 2021, @09:27AM (3 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday April 09 2021, @09:27AM (#1135246) Journal

    Oh, he's right, but he's right for the wrong reasons. Still, I'll take that over his usual, which is to be wrong for the wrong reasons :D

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday April 09 2021, @10:10AM (2 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Friday April 09 2021, @10:10AM (#1135253) Homepage
      I would not be willing to make that statement, I'd even say I suspect he's arrived at this stance using the right reasoning, even if I don't share his precepts.
      Your logic is akin to the religious types who insist that atheists can't do good deeds.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 09 2021, @11:34AM (1 child)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday April 09 2021, @11:34AM (#1135266) Journal

        No it isn't and here's why:

        The religious chestnut that an atheist is incapable of doing a good deed begs the question; it assumes that the definition of morality hinges on some form of Divine Command Theory (which itself is shot so full of holes I am amazed anyone seriously advances it any longer). I am not assuming that Mr. Hallow is not able to access the same epistemological toolbox I am; rather, I am stating that based on past interactions with him and demonstrated sociopathic tendencies, there is an extremely high high likelihood that he did not arrive at the same conclusion I did by the same route.

        Now, this *may* be because he doesn't have access to the same epistemological tools I do, being a sociopath (i.e., he lacks empathy), but it is not necessarily so, and it's entirely possible for a non-sociopath to be shortsighted and stupid. Not knowing the exact configuration of what passes for Mr. Hallow's mind, I can't say for 100% certain how he got here, but based on past performance, it is very likely coming from a place of selfishness. It doesn't mean he's wrong, it means stumbling and got lucky.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday April 09 2021, @02:38PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 09 2021, @02:38PM (#1135302) Journal

          Not knowing the exact configuration of what passes for Mr. Hallow's mind

          Indeed. That knowledge clearly falls well short.