With over 800 hours of training. Not being distracted by the comments of a 17 year old or being filmed by some civilians. There is a policy around filming and they know that they can be film, they know that, this is not something new. This is not Something Earth shattering or even particularly noteworthy. Sergeant staggered your recall him, hes patrol and lapd, he said people used the rocks and bottles. They have phones, they are expressing concern, they are not doing anything. This is notjustification for an assault, for murder. Sergeant stagger. The defence suggested in their Cross Examination that reasonable minds can disagree or that some of the witnesses dont line up exactly where the force began or what exactly should be done but dont get caught up in that, dont miss the forest for the trees. Consider a testimony as a whole. Officer after officer after officer got on that stand, raise their hand, and told you the chief of police, right, that this conduct, the nine minutes 29 seconds, violates the use of force policy, by which the departments core value. He violated his duty of care, he failed to render aid. His duty of care, he failed to renderaid. Remember commander his duty of care, he failed to render aid. Remember commander now Inspector Katie Blackwell who was in charge of all training and look at this and said i didnt even know what this is. I dont know this modification is. This isnt how they train. These are the rules. Lieutenant marcel looked at this and he said without equivocation not an npd train tactic. It is not. We dont train our people to do dont train our people to npd train tactic. It is not. We dont train our people to do this. You can present 1,000 hypothetical situations, you can talk about what did happen all day long into next week but when yOu Talk about what did happen on that day at that time, thats what they said, use of force unreasonable. Supervisor said the force should have ended right after Mr Ford was on the ground. His supervisor said that. Lieutenant zimmerman, the oldest serving, or i should say the most years of service of Minneapolis Police department, longest serving, correct myself, longest serving, correct myself, longest Serving Member of the department, what did he say . You look at this. He said this was totally unnecessary. Totally unnecessary. A use of deadly force. Not reasonable. Only reasonable force is authorised. The Expert Witness from the los angeles Police Department to has trained thousands of Police Officers looked at this. This is objectively unreasonable force. The former Police Officer, university of South Carolina Law school professor, this use of force was unreasonable, it was disproportionate and it violates national standards. The experts national standards. The experts agree. National standards. The experts agree. Because the force has to be reasonable when it starts, it has to be reasonable when it ends and what is happening . If you look at the bottom as George Floyd is handcuffed and on the ground, what is he saying . He is saying i cant breathe 27 times within the first four minutes and 45 seconds of this encounter he is saying that. And the defendant continues to kneel on his back and neck, continue the dangerous restraint. George floyd says, into the restraint at 82224, my stomach hurts, my neck hurts, everything hurts. The defendant heard that, it was George Floyd resisting when he was trying to breathe . And the defendant heard it and he now Officer King Cant find a pulse. Now the greatest sceptic of this case among you, how can you justify the continued force on this man when he has no pulse . No pulse. Continued the restraint, continued grinding, twisting, pushing them down and crushing the very life out of him. It was not too late, the could of rolled him over and perform cpr but no he continued. Past the point of finding a pulse. Thats the point when the ambulance arrives him the point when the emts get out of the ambulance. Whats the goal . Whats the plan here . What are we trying to accomplish . This was a counterfeit 20 bill allegedly. What is going on . Why, why hold him that long past that point, past that line that was crossed . No, unreasonable force. Unreasonable. Not proportional. Excessive. Violated policy, it violated the law. It violated everything that the Minneapolis Police department stood for. It is not lawful. We use that phrase awful but lawful, but the force that is not lawful. Itsjust but lawful, but the force that is not lawful. Its just awful. But lawful, but the force that is not lawful. Itsjust awful. So but lawful, but the force that is not lawful. Its just awful. So the defendant is guilty of second Degree Murder, hes guilty of third Degree Murder. Hes guilty of second degree manslaughter. All of them because this was not a justified use of force, you cannotjustify this use of force, its impossible. Not if you buy the rules and standards that a sworn officer to protect and serve, that a sworn at the beginning of my comments, i talked about George Floyd life, how he was surrounded by people who cared about him, surrounded by familiarfaces, people he could look out to in the crowd. And at his death he was surrounded by strangers. They were strangers but you cant say they didnt care. You cant say that. These people were randomly chosen from the community, people from the community randomly chosen by fate and they were coming from different places, and they were going to different places, and they had different purposes, all of them. Random members of the community. All converged by fate at one single moment in time to witness something. The witness nine minutes and 29 seconds of shocking abuse of authority. To watch a man die. And there was nothing they could do about it. Because they were powerless, they were utterly powerless, they were utterly powerless because even they respected the badge even seen this happen, they try to come out at first they said hey you can get up off him. They became more and more desperate as they watch this Go On And on and on and there was nothing, there was nothing they could do. All they could do, all they could do was watch and gather what they could. Gather their memories. Gather their thoughts and impressions, gather those precious recordings. And they gathered those up, and they brought them here and they brought them here and they got up on the stand and they testified and they bore witness to what they saw. They bore witness to what they saw. They bore witness to this outrageous act and they told you about it and they gave you what they had, their thoughts their impressions, their memories, they gave you those precious recordings and so you could see this, you could see this from every single angle of. They gave that to you. They were powerless to do anything but that. They gave it to you. Randomly selected people from the community. You get a summons in the mail. And here you are. All converged on one spot. Now, oursystem, we here you are. All converged on one spot. Now, our system, we have power. The power actually belongs to us, the people. And we give it to the Government And Trust for us to hold and to use appropriately, and sometimes we take it back. Sometimes when something is really important, we reserve those decisions for our self. The state . We have power. We cannot convict the defendant, the judge has power. But he cannot convict the defendant. That power, that power belongs to you. You have that power belongs to you. You have that power belongs to you. You have that power and only you have the power to convict the defendant of these crimes and in so doing, and in so doing declared that this use of force was unreasonable. It was excessive. It was grossly disproportionate, it is not an excuse for the shocking abuse that you saw with your own eyes and you can believe your own eyes. This case is exactly what you thought when you saw it first, when you saw that video. It is exactly fact, you can believe your eyes. It is exactly what you believe, it is exactly what you saw with your eyes, it is exactly what you knew. Its what you felt in your gut. Its what you now know in your heart. This wasnt policing. This was murder. The defendant is guilty of all three counts. All of them. And theres no excuse. Thank you. Members of the jury, we are going to take a members of the jury, we are going to take a 20 members of the jury, we are going to take a 20 Minute Break and just for your information we will also take a 20 minute your information we will also take a 20 Minute Break after the defence arguments before the States Rebuttal arguments before the States Rebuttal and the final instructions. So, rebuttal and the final instructions. 50. There rebuttal and the final instructions. So, there we are as you heard there from so, there we are as you heard there from the so, there we are as you heard there from the judge, a 20 Minute Break there from the judge, a 20 Minute Break there in from the judge, a 20 Minute Break there in the from the judge, a 20 Minute Break there in the trial. And from thejudge, a 20 Minute Break there in the trial. There in the trial. And we were heafina there in the trial. And we were hearing the there in the trial. And we were hearing the prosecution there in the trial. And we were hearing the prosecution there | saying that George Floyd asked for help with his very last breath. The prosecutor said that George Floyd baked until he could speak no more, all that was required was a little Compassion And None was shown that day. Lets talk to our Correspondent Larry Madowo who is in George Floyd square in minneapolis. Well, the trial reaching its final stages now, larry. I guess people there and Indeed across the united states are following it very, very closely Indeed. States are following it very, very closely Indeed. They are following closel , closely Indeed. They are following closely. They closely Indeed. They are following closely, they are closely Indeed. They are following closely, they are bracing closely Indeed. They are following closely, they are bracing for closely Indeed. They are following closely, they are bracing for the i closely, they are bracing for the verdict which will be sometime probably this week. We have been hearing that the prosecutor telling the jury that what you saw happened happened. And he also told them that do not believe nonsense, use your common sense. He was trying to undermine this narrative that Doctor David Fow bar, he was a defence forensic pathologist and one of the theories advanced was while George Floyd was lying back there, one of the causes was his death was the exhaust fumes coming from the Squad Car, essentially Carbon Monoxide Poisoning from the police car. And in his Closing Argument today, he told thejury in his Closing Argument today, he told the jury that is nonsense, you should not believe it. And he also asked the jury, should not believe it. And he also asked thejury, do should not believe it. And he also asked the jury, do you believe that George Floyd choice to die at that exact moment because of his Heart Disease or his Drug Use and not at any other point . He has made a strong case for why they should convict the Defendant Derek Chauvin of all three charges against him. And when yOu Talk to members of the African American Community there in minneapolis larry, do they feel this is a fair trial, The Process is fair and thorough, what are they saying about the trial and the possible verdicts that could be returned . They are great for that at least there is a trial in this case because they have been instances where there have been no charges filed against officers who were involved in what is called an officer involved shooting where a Black Man died of a police encounter. They are often no charges filed because there is wide protection come at this qualified immunity principle in america which allows please to use force while they are on duty. However this time there has been charges filed. They are cautiously optimistic. A lot of people here have been unhappy with the defence strategy. They feel that George Floyd has been put on trial for his own death. They feel that the Focus On his Drug Use and is undergoing Health Problems and not the reasons leading to his death has been overweighted by the prosecution here. But that is all now the backed up here. But that is all now the backed up for another case of a Black Man dying after a police encounter, Daunte Wright Force of the few look back at the memorial set up there for George Floyd, they added a new name, daunte wright, a 20 year old man who died a week and a day ago after a Police Officer mistook her taserfor after a Police Officer mistook her taser for a after a Police Officer mistook her taserfor a gun, or going for her taserfor a gun, or going for her taser and when she tried to immobilise him, she ended up shooting him and he died a short while later. People feel this is the problem with over policing of black communities here in this one trial will not change what needs a much more systemic overhaul. Harper will not change what needs a much more systemic overhaul. How much loner do more systemic overhaul. How much longer do you more systemic overhaul. How much longer do you think more systemic overhaul. How much longer do you think the more systemic overhaul. How much longer do you think the trial more systemic overhaul. How much longer do you think the trial still longer do you think the trial still has to run . We longer do you think the trial still has to run . Longer do you think the trial still has to run . We are going to hear from the defence has to run . We are going to hear from the defence next. Has to run . We are going to hear from the defence next. After has to run . We are going to hear from the defence next. After the | from the defence next. After the defence has made their own Closing Argument, it will have a chance, the prosecution has one more chance to rebut that and then the jury goes into deliberations. It could take an hour or a week, it is entirely up to thejury. So i cant predict. There is too good president s. In one case, there were 11 hours, another case took five days. Mi there were 11 hours, another case took five days took five days. All right, larry, thank you took five days. All right, larry, thank you very took five days. All right, larry, thank you very much took five days. All right, larry, thank you very much Indeed i took five days. All right, larry, | thank you very much Indeed for took five days. All right, larry, thank you very much Indeed for the Death Burn nd for that. Libido for us in minneapolis, so we can also go to minneapolis to Nadeem Graves who is and former public defender, thank you for being with us. We have been watching the Trail Afternoon here and im sure you have been following it very closely as well, what do you make of the legal process of this trial . ,. , ~ make of the legal process of this trial . ,. ,. ,. , make of the legal process of this trial . ,. ,. ,. , trial . First thank you for having me. I trial . First thank you for having me i think trial . First thank you for having me. I think the trial . First thank you for having me. I think the Process Trial . First thank you for having me. I think The Process has trial . First thank you for having l me. I think The Process has gone well. No one can say that Mr Chauvin didnt have a fair trial here, he has a jury of his peers here, he he had an opportunity to present witnesses that were countered the states arguments and positions in evidence in order to create a some sort of doubt. I dont think it was successful in doing so, i think the state has laid out a tremendous case. They brought qualified witnesses, experts, and then they had compassionate witnesses who were there and were able to take this testify as to what they saw and how egregious Mr Schober Ands Contact Tech was full Mr Schober met� s and it was about my equipment do you think this will change policing in america and the Way Police attitudes towards black people in america . I would hope so, i would hope that this would eliminate the bigger issue, systemic issues that we have in policing. Unfortunately as i heard in the states opening argument, they made a very clear that this is a case against the state of minnesota versus chauvin. So in my opinion i think that gets a pass to other officers who do similar conduct and maybe not go as far as Mr Chauvin has done and until we are truly honest about the issues that continue to plague every Police Department notjust here, i dont see a whole lot, i am not hopeful i guess about systemic change happening. But guess about systemic change happening guess about systemic change happening. Guess about systemic change haueninu. � ,. Happening. But is it your view that The Black Community happening. But is it your view that The Black Community there happening. But is it your view that The Black Community there in The Black Community there in minnesota and Indeed across the united states have faith in this trial, in this legal process, in the judge and Indeed in thejury . I would loosely say we have faith. We have seen time after time again where we have been disappointed where we have been disappointed where you expect an outcome and that would bejust in our opinion, the facts show very clearly, and that doesnt happen. The state of minnesota, only one officer has been held accountable convicted of murdering a Defendant Or Murdering someone, and that was an immigrant from somalia, he was an african american or, an immigrant and he killed a white woman, he is the only one who has been held accountable in this state and there has been multiple officers who have killed people of colour and so to say that we are hopeful in The Process . I would not agree with that. �. , process . I would not agree with that. ~. ,. , process . I would not agree with that. ~. , , that. And as the trial reaches its climax, that. And as the trial reaches its climax. How that. And as the trial reaches its climax, how much that. And as the trial reaches its climax, how much tension that. And as the trial reaches its climax, how much tension is that. And as the trial reaches its l climax, how much tension is there that. And as the trial reaches its climax, how much tension is there in minnesota and again across america . I would say here specifically, emotions are high as was just noted, there was a young man that was killed the last week by Police Officers. And so we are already doing with the emotions and the intensity of the Chauvin Trial and this happens and then you hear the news about what happened in chicago where police covered up the murder of a young 13 Euros boys understand we people are frustrated, they are activated, and there was a hope in society. 13 year old boy. And activated, and there was a hope in society. 13yearold boy. And in olice as society. 13yearold boy. And in police as a society. 13yearold boy. And in police as a whole. Society. 13yearold boy. And in police as a whole. Nadine society. 13yearold boy. And in police as a whole. Nadine graves, i police as a whole. Nadine graves, thank you very much, former wear in public defender talking to us. Theres been a chorus of condemnation from across football after six top English Clubs said they planned to form a new Super League with other european sides. Borisjohnson said the idea was not good news for fans and he would work with the Football Authorities to make sure it doesnt go ahead in the way thats been proposed. The president of uefa Europes Football governing body said the plans were a spit in the face of all football lovers. Under the proposals, arsenal, chelsea, liverpool, manchester united, manchester city, and tottenham would be part of a new midweek competition, while continuing to compete in the Premier League. Heres our Sports Correspondent andy swiss. The additional Culture Media and sports are terry Oliver Dowden has been making a statement on this to mp5 on the prospect of footballs Super League, was have a listen to what he has been saying this afternoon. What he has been saying this afternoon what he has been saying this afternoon. ,. ,. , , afternoon. Thank you Madam Deputy seaker. Afternoon. Thank you madam Deputy Speaker. Madam afternoon. Thank you madam Deputy Speaker. Madam deputy afternoon. Thank you madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, i speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, football is in our national dna. We invented it, we helped exported around the world and it has been at the heart of british life for over a century. Football clubs of Course Arentjust businesses. They define communities across the country. So along with almost every member of this house i suspect, i was appalled tjy this house i suspect, i was appalled by the announcement made late Last Night that a handful of clubs are proposing to form their own breakaway european league. These six clubs announce this decision without any consultation with Football Authorities or with government. Worst of all, they did it without any dialogue whatsoever with their own fans. It was a Tone Deaf Proposal but the onus of those Clubs Wont be able to have ignored the Near Universal Whir of outrage from all parts of the Football Community over the past 24 hours. The owners of those quotes was that this move Indeed goes against the very spirit of the game. This is a sport where a team like Leicester City can ascend from week one to the Premier League title and under a decade, earning the right to go toe to two against European Heavyweights in the champions league. Instead, a small handful of owners want to create a closed shop of elite clubs at the top of the game. A league based on Wealth And Brand recognition rather than upon merit. We will not stand tjy than upon merit. We will not stand by and watch football be criminally stripped of the things that make millions across the country love it. As a conservative, i believe passionately in defending our nations institutions and our rich heritage. They are essential to our Identity And Help with a sense of solidarity between people from every generation and every background. And just as the government would not hesitate to act when other traded areas of our national life are under threat, norwere areas of our national life are under threat, nor were we hesitate to protect one of our greatest national institutions, football. This is of course for Football Authorities to handle first and today i have met with the Premier League, the football association, and the president of uefa whilst the Sports Minister has had a number of serious meetings with the football sport association. The Football Authorities have robust rules to deal with this and i know from my conversations with them that they are rightly considering a wide range of sanctions and measures to stop this move in its tracks. My message to them was clear. They have ever backing. But madam Deputy Speaker, be in no doubt, if they cant act, we will. We will put everything on the table to prevent this from happening. We are examining every option from Governance Reform to Competition Law and mechanisms that allow football to take place. Put simply, we will be reviewing everything the government does to support these clubs to play. I have discuss these options with the Prime Minister this morning and we are working at pace across government and with Football Authorities. I want to reassure this house of a very robust response. We will do whatever it takes to protect our national game. But its clearer than ever that we need a proper examination of the long Term Future of football. Too many fans in this country, the game is now almost unrecognisable from a few decades ago. Season after season, year after year, Football Fans demonstrate unwavering Loyalty And Passion by sticking by their clubs. But there was he is being abused by a small number of individuals who wields an incredible amount of power and inference. Influence. The past year has taught us anything, it is that football is nothing without its fans. In these owners should remember that they are only temporary custodians of their clubs, and they forget fans at their peril. Thats why over the past few months i have been meeting with fans and representative organisations to develop our proposals for a fan lit review. I have always been clear that i didnt want to launch this until football had returned to normal following the pandemic. Sadly, these clubs have made it clear that i have no choice. For a Fan Led Review. They had decided to put money before fans so today i have been left with no choice but to formally trickle the launch of our fan led Review Football for stashed trigger they will be chaired by the honourable Memberfrom Trigger they will be chaired by the honourable member from chatham and answered and will be a examination of football in this country. It will cover the financial sustainability of the men and womens game, governance and regulation, and the merits of an independent regulator. Crucially in the weight of this weekends proposal, it will also consider how fans can have a even greater say in the oversight of the game and the models which might best achieve that. We are the peoples government. We are unequivocally on the side of fans and their voices have to be heard when it comes to the future of our national game. It starts with fans and it ends with fans but in the meantime, we have thrown our full fans but in the meantime, we have thrown Ourfull Weight fans but in the meantime, we have thrown our full weight behind the Football Authorities and stand ready to do whatever is necessary to represent fans and protect their interests and i commend this statement to the house. I interests and i commend this statement to the house. I called the Shadow Secretary Statement to the house. I called the Shadow Secretary of statement to the house. I called the Shadow Secretary of state, statement to the house. I called the Shadow Secretary of state, joe Shadow Secretary of state, Joe Stevens Shadow Secretary of state, Joe Stevens. , ~ Shadow Secretary of state, Joe Stevens. ,. ,. Shadow Secretary Of State, Joe Stevens. ,. , stevens. Thank you very much Madam Deu stevens. Thank you very much madam Deputy Speaker stevens. Thank you very much madam Deputy Speaker. And stevens. Thank you very much madam Deputy Speaker. And i stevens. Thank you very much madam Deputy Speaker. And i think stevens. Thank you very much madam Deputy Speaker. And i think the Deputy Speaker. And i think the Secretary Of State for advanced site of parts of his statement that he just made. This is a watershed moment for our national game and the Statement Today is welcomed as is the chair of the review. But it is short on detail and of the urgency that the situation merits. Fans will have noted that. The Secretary Of State tweeted Last Night extolling the virtues of the football pyramid. But if anything expose the Governments Lack of understanding of our broken football system. That tweet she summed it up for some tory Treatment And Economics does not work and it especially doesnt work in football. Jo stevens. Football governance and finances broken, and Football Fans which clubs we support are ignored. The Hedge Fund owners and billionaires who treat Football Clubs like any other of their commodities have no care for the history of our football, for the role it plays in villages, towns and cities up and down our country and especially for the fans who are the Beating Heart of it. They should understand their role as custodians rather than cartel chiefs. The future of our national game and all our clubs depend on it. Labour has repeatedly called for the reform of the governance and finances of football by the government. It needs Government Intervention to fix that broken system and thats why we pledged in all four of our manifestos going back to 2010 to take action and its why i and my honourable friend the shuttle Sports Minister and Memberfor World South Minister And Member for World South repeatedly Minister And Memberfor World South repeatedly urged the government to get on with its promised review, its Fan Led Review of football, i promise they made in 2019. It is never a year since of a letter to the Sports Minister Offering Support and help with fixing questions that the review should Focus On. Memberfrom wirral the review should Focus On. Member from wirral south. We the review should Focus On. Memberfrom wirral south. We know that there members from across this house from the past 11 years of conservative governments supported reform so it is time Bam Deputy for the government to get off the Subs Bench and show some leadership on the pitch because we need reform of football. It is not as if there has been a blockage in government to prevent the government to use her problems out for some former conservative supports mr the honourable member for wield stone and wheeled has said No One is speaking for the Football World with the Independence And Authority needed to address the big issues and she is right. The conservative former chair of the dcms select committee, the honourable Memberfor Folkestone and hyde has said long ago we should have reform the governance of football and he is red as well for some Endocrine Conservator of the dcms select committee, has said what is needed is a Family Review of football with real teeth and here we have more evidence to strengthen the case for it. So i welcome the review but why the long delay . Why create that vacuum that has allowed these is super weak proposals the Space And Ability to become a reality . Super League Proposals . 11 recent years when a small piece of government time could have been found to bring primary legislation forward to this house to sort the problem out. Instead which it has been all punditry and no progress on the pitch. And in that time, clubs and fans have suffered disasters. Fans and barrie note you will that reform is in a come and support us in good people, manchester, my city of cardiff, portsmouth, and most Football Towns and cities have seen the damage done to clubs when Profit And Tender outstrips the role of supporters in our game. We are in a global pandemic and the owners of the six clubs behind this proposal think that now is the time . Now is the time to ride roughshod over theirfans and endanger the time to ride roughshod over their fans and endanger the future of football. On the back of the year when fans have been at the heart of supporting communities up and down the country, what a contrast. And its been carved out Behind Closed Doors without consultation with fans or players in these proposals have at their Heart A so and tie football, Super League from which you can never be relegated and which are always guaranteed a place because of your wealth. It represent a fundamental attack on the integrity of sporting competitions. This Oblique Proposal has managed to dojust that. From this Oblique Proposal has managed to do just that. From supporters trusting groups including the fsa, to the pfa the fa, ufo, at their Premier League, European Clubs association, i could go on. Its been universally rejected for the greedy, obscene and selfish proposal that it is. Lets act urgently, its already too late for their clubs and supporters. Im asking the Secretary Of State when the review will be launched, who will take part, and when will it report . And what exactly is the government going to do to stop the european Super League decimating our national game . It should explore every option and i hope it will. With her a super tax on revenue or to investigating whether Proposal Bridge the clear rules that Mark Competition in this country. Forfootball rules that Mark Competition in this country. For Football Fans up and down the country our message is clear. Labourstands down the country our message is clear. Labour stands ready to do whatever it takes to stop this plan and i hope the government will make exactly the same commitment. Iinstall. And i hope the government will make exactly the same commitment. Well, i think the honourable exactly the same commitment. Well, i think the honourable lady, exactly the same commitment. Well, i think the honourable lady, i exactly the same commitment. Well, i think the honourable lady, i think think the honourable lady, i think hidden in there somewhere it was a welcome for the approach the government is taking and defend led review. In honourable lady asks what we have been doing for the past year, and i would say a few of the things weve been doing. First of all been working to get football back Behind Closed Doors, on the first leagues in europe to achieve that. But project restart including the first ever premier games the bbc ever. We act to stop clubs going bust with hundreds of millions of pounds and ensuring that bigger clubs looked after the smaller ones with the £250 million boost from the Premier League. We asked to keep football going through the pandemic, for example secure protocols to enable travel but in the uk and elsewhere and a deed that was in the face of opposition sometimes of the Party Opposite saying we should be stopping this board behind Closed Door and crucially working to get fans back into stadiums and they wouldve seen this weekend a welcome at the Fa Cup semi finals. And we are working and making good progress towards a for the return of fans at stage three of the road map. Alongside all of that with continued to engage on the fan that review. The Sports Minister and i have been engaging extensively, just to list a few names ive discussed it with anton ferdinand, jordan henderson, karen carney. That pfa, the national income of the football sports association, women in football, david bernstein, the honourable lady referred to the honourable members for hive, for the wheels, and the select committee. All of this work is been essential in making sure we get to the point where we can launch today. As i said in my statement i would it till fans were fully back and the game had been stabilised but because of the actions that have been taken over this weekend we have launched it now and the honourable lady will have seen from my statement it will be led by the honourable Memberfor Statement it will be led by the honourable member for elmsford. Statement it will be led by the Honourable Memberfor elmsford. I hope she will support from both sides of this house, shes excellent Sports Minister, Fan And Someone thats passionately committed to the game. We will shortly be publishing the terms of reference for the review, we will be working at speed and is the honourable lady would have seen from my statement and im happy to repeat again from the dispatch box, we will do whatever it takes to protect our game and we will examine every single option and we are doing that right now. So that was the Culture Secretary in the comments make it very clear as he said at the beginning that we will put everything on the table to stop this idea of a Super League happening. There will be a very robust response he said from the government. He was not clear with the government can do to stop it but they are looking at the various ways of doing that. Hes been talking, too he said, the Premier League and ua five. He said he was appalled by a Tone Deaf Proposal for this Super League. And he said that people who had proposed it were Tone Deaf when it came to the roar of outrage from the fans. Lets go back to the trial of Derek Chauvin. The former Police Officer in minneapolis accused of the murder of George Floyd. Weve been hearing initially from the prosecution there summing up, Closing Arguments from the prosecution. And now this is the turn of the Defence Attorney to some of the defence case, lets have a listen in. � , of the defence case, lets have a listen in. � ,. ,. Listen in. Theres so very much when Ou Talk listen in. Theres so very much when yOu Talk about listen in. Theres so very much when yOu Talk about and listen in. Theres so very much when yOu Talk about and its listen in. Theres so very much when yOu Talk about and its all yOu Talk about and its all important. We need to talk about. Before i begin my review of the evidence in this case i would like to address two very crucial points of law, and they were touched on by the state. The Presumption Of Innocence, and what proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt is. The Presumption Of Innocence, the defendant is presumed innocent. Thats the starting point, he is presumed innocent of these charges, as this presumption remains with him throughout the course of the trial. The presentation of the evidence, throughout the course of your deliberations. Until and unless the state has proved its case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. The defendant does not have to prove his innocence. We talked about this injury selection. We talked about the starting point. The defendant does not have to try to catch up, he starts at the Presumption Of Innocence. Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. Heres the definition that the judge just read you. Nor does it mean beyond all possibility of doubt. The law recognises three standards of proof. The ponderings of the evidence is the first and lowest standard, clear and convincing evidence is the next standard, and the third standard is a prove Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. And the way we, lawyers, sometimes illustrate what these three standards mean is through the scales of justice. Standards mean is through the scales ofjustice. Right . The scales of justice equally balanced. When you apply the standard of the preponderance of the evidence its also called the scintilla of the evidence, a single grain of sand. It tips the scales in the favour of one party over the other. And this the burden of proof is used in many civil cases. Somebody, if the state wants to take away your Drivers Licence for an example. That is the burden of proof that the state has in that type of the case. They have to just ever so slightly convince the finder of fact that their evidence supports their action. The next standard is clear and convincing evidence. Thats pretty self explanatory, right . It is clear evidence and it convinces you, the finder of fact, that the action is correct. This is the standard of proof that is used if the state wants to take away your children. Clear and convincing evidence. It tips the scales more in the favour of one party over the other. The highest standard in this country is proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. Essentially with the state has to convince you is that there, the evidence in this case completely eliminates any reasonable doubt, or in other words, leaving only on doubt. Capricious, fanciful. Capricious doubt, capricious means unpredictable. Fanciful, Space Aliens flew in inhabited the body of Derek Chauvin and college this death. Thats fanciful. Beyond the reasonable doubt. Its the highest standard in the law. Does not mean beyond all possibility of doubt because i suppose Space Aliens may have been inhabiting his body, but thats obviously fanciful and capricious. So these two standards, the presumption of Innocence And Proof beyond a reasonable Doubt Work in concert with each other. You start with the proposition that mr Derek Chauvin is innocent of these charges. The state have to advance substantial evidence to convince you that the only doubts that remain are on reasonable doubts. As you analyse the evidence in this case would sibley have to find that any defence that has been advanced was unreasonable. Thats with the standard is all about. I want to take this opportunity to talk to you about the importance of reading the entire instruction. Because i have seen, you know and lawyers, and i am going to do it to, lawyers pick and choose. Those things that help us make our case. And help us argue our case. Thats ourjob as lawyers. It is to point out words and phrases within the instructions that make the difference in the case, and to take that evidence and present it to you in such a way that it supports our proposition. Thats what we do, thats why you are instructed that if your memories of the evidence is different, that if your, if the judge was like law is what applies. But take the time to carefully read the entire instructions. Throughout the entire instructions. Throughout the course of this trial you have seen us do this. Little snippets. A second here, a second there, a screenshot here, a screenshot there. You need to review the entirety of the evidence in this case during the course of your deliberations as well. And i can tell you that some of the videos we have seen, they are much longer than what was presented in court. There is additional information and you are going to see some of that as we go through this case today. So take the time and conduct an honest assessment of the facts of this case, compare it to the law as the judge instructs you and the entirety of the law. Thats why the instructions tell you consider the instructions as a whole. I told you that lawyers like to present evidence that favours them. Right . But we have to be intellectually honest about the evidence, we have to present it in the honest and intellectually cohesive and coherent manner. And i have to address something that i think is important, and i think it is a prime example of what i am asking you and what is your obligation to do to look at the evidence in light of the other pieces of evidence. So you heard during the testimony of Doctor Fowler that one of the things that he considered is the possibility that Carbon Monoxide was present, and could have contributed to an environment that created and oxygen deprivation. You heard that testimony. In rebuttal to that testimony, the state brought Doctor Tobin back in and he told you we can completely disregard that. We know as a fact, we know conclusively that Mr Floyd did not have Carbon Monoxide because his oxygen was saturated to 98 . And you just heard the state say, just like i am right here, so it stands to reason. I could get up in front of you and argue to you that we know this was not asphyxiation because George Floyd had a 98 Oxygen Level. How could he have been asphyxiated at the hospital with a 98 Oxygen Level . But thats not intellectually honest. It does not stack up against the rest of the evidence. Because of what we know, right . We heard the testimony of Seth And Derek smith, these paramedics. We heard the testimony and they came in and said they began resuscitative efforts, introduced oxygen, and oxygen supply. Manually breathing for him, they are re oxygenating his blood. So when you look at that piece of evidence, when you look at a piece of evidence like that you have to compare it against all of the other evidence. Because you cannot come in and say George Floyd come on one hand, George Floyd died of asphyxiation but he has a 98 Oxygen Level in his blood. His blood is oxygenated. It stands to reason the opposite is true as well. You cant come in and say i can conclusively prove that Mr Floyd did not have Carbon Monoxide in his blood because he had this high oxygen saturation. You test one statement against the evidence of other people and you compare it. That is what you as jurors are obligated to do and what i am asking you to do. Compare the evidence against itself. Test it, challenge it, compare it to the law. Read the instructions in their entirety. Start from the point of the Presumption Of Innocence and see how far the state can get. I submit to you that the state has failed to meet its burden of proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. Derek chauvin have spent charged as the state indicated with these three charges and the judge has instructed. Count one is second Degree Murder while committing a felony, also called the Felony Murder Rule in minnesota. Kind of the Textbook Example is if i run into a liquor store, i pull a gun im intending to rob the liquor store, my gun goes off, i shoot and kill the Teller Stub i did not intend to go in and murder that person, but my the death of that teller occurred while i was committing a felony, thats the Felony Murder Rule. Hes been charged with murder in the third degree for performing an intentional act that was eminently dangerous. We see in the instructions, youve heard them. And manslaughter in the second degree. Again, the law has all of the words it defines the words you need and the instructions should be considered in their entirety. Whenever i meet with the client i try to explain what the elements are and this is the analogy that i use. I say that a criminal case is kind of like baking Chocolate Chip cookies. You have to have the necessary ingredients and have the necessary ingredients and have to have Flour And Sugar and butter and Chocolate Chips. Whatever else goes into the Chocolate Chip cookies. If you have all of the ingredients you can make Chocolate Chip cookies. But if you are missing any one single ingredient then you cant make Chocolate Chip cookies. Its a simple kind of analogy. But the Criminal Law works the same way. We say, we call the ingredients the elements. The state has the burden of proving each and every element Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. Notjust some global proposition that theyve proved their case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt they have to prove each of these elements Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, and if you determine that they have done so you convict. But if they are missing any one single elements, any one single element it is a not guilty verdict. And you saw the spreadsheet that the state put up, right . The elements are a little different in each of these cases. And to some of these elements will take less of your consideration. You will have to look at the evidence and will have to move for example, determine the location, did this happen on may 25, 2020, its going to take less of your consideration but you have to go through that process. Two of the elements that i want to Focus On during the course of my discussion today, two of these elements are common throughout or two of these issues are common and applied to all three counts. And so i want to focus my Remarks Today on those two issues. The first, were Derek Chauvins actions authorised use of force by officer. No crime is committed if it wasnt authorised use of force. Period, end of discussion. The second is an element that does appear in all three counts. That is the cause of death. What caused Mr Floyds death. And we are going to talk about that secondly. So lets start with the concept of reasonable force. As the instructions read in their entirety, no crime is committed if a Police Officers actions were justified by the Police Officers use of reasonable force in the line of duty in effecting a lawful arrest or preventing an escape from custody. The Kind And Degree of force a Police Officer may lawfully use and executing his duties is limited by what a reasonable Police Officer in the same situation were believed to be necessary. Any use of force beyond that is not reasonable. To determine if the actions of the Police Officer were reasonable you must look at the facts which a reasonable officer in the same situation would have known at the precise moment the officer acted with force. You must decide whether the officers actions were objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the facts and the circumstances and without regard to the officers own subjective state of mind, intention or motivations. The defendant is not guilty of a crime if you use force as authorised by law and to prove guilt the state must further prove Beyond A Reasonable Doubt that the Defendants Use of force was not authorised by law. Your Memberfor Opening statements and how i talked about reason and common sense. The reasonable Police Officer standard. Ijust reasonable Police Officer standard. I just want to Briefly Add one thing here, is the standard is not what should the officer have done in the circumstances, its not what could the officer have done differently in the officer have done differently in the circumstances, the standard is what were the facts that were known to this officer at the precise moment he used force and considering all the totality of the circumstances known to the officer would a regional Police Officer, what would a reasonable Police Officer have done . You have heard from numerous experts, Police Use of force experts, Training Department from the Minneapolis Police department, you have heard from Police Officers, street Police Officers. Sergeant edwards. You have heard from these people and they have given you their opinions at various stages as to the reasonableness of the use of force. But one of the things that the state, or excuse me, one of the things that all of these Police Officers effectively agreed to is that when you look at the question of what would a reasonable Police Officer do knowing the facts of the case, there are things that a Police Officer is entitled to take into consideration Above And Beyond the facts. The training that they receive. Their experiences as a Police Officer. The Department Policies on the use of force, and all of these things kind of lead into the question of, most critically, what are the facts that were known to the Police Officer, the reasonable Police Officer, at the reasonable Police Officer, at the precise moment the force was used . So you can start at a very high level, right . What were the reasonable Police Officers knowledge of the area . Is this a high crime location . Is it a low Crime Area . Those are things, those are facts that a Police Officer would know. What are the specifics on the location of arrest and a densely populated urban environments, or am i in a kind of secluded backyard . Officer is calculating these pieces of information and assessing the risk. Assessing the threats. Officers are entitled to kind of taken Disk Consideration things that you and i dont think about. Their tactical advantages, their tactical disadvantages. They can take into consideration the Scene Security given the scene secure and security of the scene. Those are two different concepts. So again focusing back into what facts were known at the precise Moment Force was used. You can then take into consideration this mid Range Level of information. A reasonable officer wants to keep his fellow officers safe. A reasonable Police Officer takes into consideration the safety of civilians. A reasonable Police Officer takes into account the safety of the person that they are arresting. They take into account what resources do i have based upon how close am i to a hospital, whats the expected time if i call ems . Because a reasonable Police Officer at times, theyve got to put the person in their Squad Car and take them. Because they are further away, calling for help bringing help and would take longer than it would simply to take the person directly. And then you look at the direct knowledge that a reasonable Police Officer would have at the precise Moment Force was used. That includes information that they gather from dispatch, their direct observations of the scene, the subjects in the current surroundings, and take into consideration whether the suspect was under the influence of a controlled substance. They can take into consideration, because again, this is a dynamic and ever changing, just like life, things change. Its a dynamic situation. Its fluid. They take into account their experience with the subject at the beginning of the a reasonable Police Officer tries to predict or is at least cognisant and concerned about future behaviour based upon past behaviour. But the unpredictability of humans factors into the reasonable Police Officers analysis too because sometimes people take reasonable Police Officers, they take someone into custody with no problem and suddenly they become a problem. It can change in an instant. A reasonable Police Officer will take into consideration