 In a normal debate you have you know each side has a symmetric task, right? I try to summon more evidence than you that say guns are good you try to summon more evidence than me that guns are bad, right? And to bring up remote possibilities Constitutes a kind of grotesque just asking questions routine not to Name check the show, but in the context of a criminal trial The the task assigned to each side is highly asymmetric on purpose, right? It's not enough for the majority of evidence to indicate guilt and it's not even enough for evidence for Guilt to be highly and substantially more likely to be true That because that's the clear and convincing evidence standard It has to be the case that there's no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial That's the key concept of reasonable doubt now when you make the debate Asymmetric in that way What would amount to a kind of just asking questions routine in another context becomes a perfect perfectly legitimate line of thinking now I want to actually zero in on what I said about About fentanyl because I did not use the word overdose. I don't think anywhere in the column What I said is that he had a potentially lethal dose now the average dose found in Someone that dies of fentanyl is 25 nanograms per milliliter Floyd was found with 11 and overdoses overdose cases have been seen as lowest three So he's around the 25th percentile percentile of what you would expect if it were an overdose death So to call it a fatal dose fatal dose would suggest that anyone would die of it That's why I didn't call it a fatal dose, but to call it a potentially fatal dose is an it's a statement of fact Now in the context of what I was actually saying And you can go back and read the column. I say that it's not unreasonable I'm always speaking and talking through the language of reasonable doubt not through the from the point of view of Giving a definite version of events, right? So I I say that it's not unreasonable to think that Chauvin killed him right actually say this in the column where it where Radley takes me to be saying that Chauvin's actions definitely didn't kill him. In fact, I say the opposite I say it's not unreasonable to think that but it's also not unreasonable to think that there's another explanation of events here and overdose was not actually The claim there that the claim was that What it's not unreasonable to think that he died of a mix of pre-existing conditions drugs in his system and adrenaline Caused by the arrest which was when push came to shove when push came to shove that was Andrew Baker's theory of the death and and so overdose appears nowhere The idea that he could not possibly have died of Positional asphyxia because it didn't appear in the autopsy again just appears nowhere in my column In fact, I say it's not unreasonable to think he did die of Chauvin's actions That's almost an exact quote. And so there's a kind of masterpiece of misreading of my column here and I think Not understanding that I'm looking at it from a reasonable doubt perspective Rather than a normal debate is at the core of that misreading Radley, how do you look at that? I? mean This is kind of the way Coleman has reacted the entire to this entire Exchange from the first post that I put up. I mean He's clearly trying he is literally just asking questions. I mean that's what the whole column It's designed to serve doubt about what actually happened and to make people think that Chauvin was You know somehow railroaded. I mean, but there are clear like factual errors for example He says that that the the maximum restraint technique Was indeed? the exact quote here According to the documentary and documents I have reviewed the move a Stand was indeed a standard hold called the maximum restraint technique Which the MPD trained his officers to use in situations where handcuffs subjects are combative and still pose the threat themselves goes on and on and on And he talks about how it's in the MPD use the force in one will and basically what he's saying is the The technique that Chauvin is using on Floyd is the MRT the maximum restraint technique that is taught in the MPD manual Well, he doesn't link to the version of the manual that was in effect at the time of show of Floyd's death And in that manual if you look it up It does talk about the maximum restraint technique But it says that it's only to be used in order to administer a device called a hobble Which is basically a way of incapacitating people After which they're immediately supposed to roll the suspect over on their side into what's called a recovery position And the reason for that is exactly what happened to George Floyd the positional asphyxia when you when someone is handcuffed and on their stomach They are it's very easy to restrict their diaphragm in a way that Does not allow them to breathe properly so they can't Inhale air deeply enough into the lungs for the body to exchange oxygen for carbon dioxide What happens is your oxygen levels then plummet in your carbon dioxide level soar which becomes fatal pretty quickly And this is exactly what the pulmonologist who testified for the state and other pulmonologists since we've reviewed the evidence that happened to Floyd MRT is not what Floyd what Chauvin did to Floyd is not MRT and Colvin Definitively says that after he reviewed the documents in the evidence it clearly was It wasn't and if he had read or if he had provided a link to the manual that he claims to have read and summarized in his column I think readers would have seen pretty clearly that it wasn't either It was Claimed that that's what Chauvin was doing in the documentary But in fact in his appeal even Chauvin's own attorneys abandoned this argument that that Chauvin was trained on it That basically Chauvin was trained on what we see in the video In in their appeal they basically say that this technique was trained In general and therefore what Chauvin did to Floyd was objectively reasonable But this but they could not show that Chauvin was actually trained on this particular technique Now I'd argue, you know, and I think most reasonable people who looked at the policy would argue There's no evidence at all that this is what that the NBD trained its officers to do what Chauvin did to Floyd They trained him to use a technique where you put a knee on the side of the neck You put you you put most of your weight on your foot But you do that to keep the person in place just long enough to administer this device called a hobble hobble After which you're supposed to roll the suspect over to their side so they can breathe that is not what we see in the video We see you know Floyd has held in that position for nine minutes Including almost three minutes after he loses consciousness that isn't taught at NPD It isn't taught at any police department in the country and that is where Chauvin commits the actual crime here Yeah, right Radley. I think that this is the central to Deciding this question and something that we need to catch our listening and viewing audience up on a little bit when you're talking about this debate over maximum restraint technique which police call MRT This is really what the case is decided on I kind of see the the entire fentanyl issue is a little bit of a red herring Maybe Coleman disagrees because the fact is whatever was you know contributing to his inability to breathe whether it was Simply having someone you know exert pressure on his back or that in combination with whatever was in his system if Chauvin was inappropriately restraining him in Contradiction to the way he was trained then that seems like the jury reached the proper verdict and so we need to dig into that question and You know, I think the the best way to do that is Unfortunately to review some of the footage. I have watched this horrible tape a few times In preparation for this and I I don't like to play it But I want to play just a little bit of it and go through Can I respond? Yes? What Bradley saying here? Sure, go ahead and then we're gonna we're gonna look in detail at you know, what actually transpired here I like to get your thoughts on whether this technique was properly applied or not Coleman Okay, I'm just because it Bradley's argument has confused me from the start here There's one argument that what what Chauvin is doing just isn't MRT at all It's it's if it's any trained technique It's some other technique right and then there's a different incompatible incompatible argument that it Is MRT, but it's improper MRT So for example, you know at many points in your part one you suggest that it's just not MRT at all Yet the rest of your argument is that it didn't follow the guidelines of MRT properly i.e. too much pressure It wasn't indicated Because of the situation Floyd wasn't a threat. These are some of your arguments and so forth All of which would be irrelevant if it's not MRT to begin with in other words It can't be bad MRT and also not MRT Which arguments Let's look at this This is what this is what you know the argument Radley makes in his piece is that you know they this slide on the on the right which is from the training is supposedly what Chauvin believed he was supposed to do and was not admitted in trial But what Radley points out is that when you zoom in on these pictures you see that the The the officer who's restraining the suspect here has his weight on the ball of his foot So but you would acknowledge that this that this is MRT, right? No, all right. All right That isn't this this is not MRT because you call it the MRT training slide in your What what Chauvin is doing to Floyd is not MRT. Okay, but I'm sorry I'm talking about the training slide right now This is the training slide is MRT or is it an element of MRT? Do you agree with that or no? Yes, the the MPD has acknowledged that that slide is part of the MRT training correct It also says on the slide very specific explicitly that you're supposed to roll the suspect over into the recovery position As soon as possible the policy manual also says the purpose of MRT is to administer a hobble And it is not it's supposed to be temporary. It's not something you administer for nine minutes. I understand that so but here, okay, can we Zoom in on the second picture on Chauvin's. Yes so The argument is that he has more weight Than the picture in the slide and therefore it's not MRT or rather it's improper MRT, right? All of his weight appears to be on the neck and also Radley is saying that if you that This is this is an intermediate step to getting them in a recovery position and applying a restraining device called a hobble Which never happened therefore. This is negligent criminally negligent behavior Yeah, okay, so Now again in the context of reasonable doubt the question is is there another reasonable explanation now? I'm not going to say that Radley's is not a reasonable explanation But that's not the burden of the defense The burden of the defense is to show that there are reasonable other reasonable explanations So as we know from the transcript the moment they get George Floyd on the ground Chauvin says to the partner. Do you have a hobble or do you have a hobble? Two tau goes to get the hobble which he can't initially find it's Thomas Lane's hobble and then as he's looking for the hobble they Lane or someone else realizes that Floyd is has blood on his mouth and needs EMS. So they call a code to for EMS They hike it up to code three Eventually tau finds the hobble, but now that they have EMS coming Chauvin and tau Decide that actually we're not going to put on the hobble because it takes about two minutes to get on Roughly and when you have EMS coming hiked up to code three You you reasonably assume EMS is three minutes away we know that from from the trial and You'd have to take the hobble off in order to apply apply medical treatment to someone You can't really put someone easily on a stretcher on their back in the hobble so the the Occam's razor explanation of the decision to Initially the decision to use the hobble and then the reversal is that they now had EMS coming So they were going to hold for EMS and then obviously what happened which Is not possible to see without 2020 hindsight is that there was what what? Two different at least one of the firefighter witnesses for the prosecution Agreed was an unheard of delay Almost unique and unheard of delay in fires ability to get there Because of a miscommunication with dispatch And so that's one of the reasons why That's the reason why they didn't apply the hobble right or rather that is certainly a reasonable explanation for why they didn't apply the hobble Okay, but colman Let me play just a little bit of the video because that does not appear to be what happens in the video It appears that they are asking to The other officers are repeatedly asking chauvin to You got your uh I can't I can't hear what you're saying okay I'm talking Anyone can look up the transcript and confirm that this is what happened chauvin says. Do you have a hobble? Total goes to get it But by the time he gets it the situation has changed because now they've decided to call ems and ems is on the way And then tow house asks again. Well, do you need the hobble now and they say no We've got ems coming essentially that's so at what point is it okay to continue to put Your knee on george floyd's back after he's gone limp after one of your fellow officers tells you he can't find a pulse After bystanders are telling you he can no longer he can't breathe anymore And then chauvin continues to put weight on his back for another three minutes after that Where where's the confusion there? What's the akam re akam's razor explanation for continuing to put your full weight on a man who's you've slipped into unconsciousness? So my point is that there are multiple explanations one explanation would be that he's a psychopath, right? In a criminal trial, however, the the presence of other reasonable explanations Uh constitutes reasonable doubt So one reasonable explanation Is that uh, they were trained as john emersal testified who is the prosecution star witness in on use of force MPD policy that there are situations Where you hold someone in the prone restraints prone body weight Body weight restraint and do not move them to the side recovery position until the code is quote The scene is code for meaning everything safe And everything under control the scene is safe, right? And part of what they're taught is that when you have an angry crowd Sorry It's hard to resist when you're unconscious. How does that mean the scene does not merely include the resistance of the They're not trained that that code for it only consists in in a person not resisting but also consists In a scene being secure and safe. So when you have an angry hostile crowd They're taught that that's not necessarily code for and as as further evidence of that When the when ems, uh, rather when paramedics arrived before the fire fire truck Uh, the paramedics arrived whenever it was around 826 827 They had two options. They could stay there and immediately start medical Immediately start, uh, medical work on floyd or they can do and we know this from trial They can do what's called a load and go where they get him in the ambulance and then move the ambulance somewhere safe They chose to do a load and go because they perceived that the scene was not code for because of the angry crowd In other words, if the paramedics perceived that it was not code for and chose to do a load and go delaying Giving medical aid to floyd then certainly the cops at the scene perceived that it wasn't code for and their training is that There are situations where they can hold someone In prone restraint and not move to the side recovery until the scene is code for so that is a reasonable explanation Not the only one but in the context of a criminal trial The presence of such a reasonable explanation can be itself itself Exculpatory it has to be the the key word there is is reasonable I don't think you can say because I mean literally the stillity the crowd was people telling them that you are killing this man Trying to tell them trying to warn them that what they were doing to floyd was was dangerous Uh, as far as I know nobody from the crowd struck into the officers threw anything at the officers We're literally telling them that what they were doing was killing george floyd if that's reason to continue to To use the amount of force you're using Um, then just about any amount of force is going to be reasonable. I mean It showed been literally he ignored warnings from his fellow officers. He ignored warning from bystanders. He'd Ignored warnings from floyd himself Um, I don't think you can say that because people saw what was happening and were angry about it That gives you an excuse to continue doing what you're doing So it's it's not a matter of what appears reasonable to you or me It's a matter of whether he was doing something within training. So I have a few points to make here One is I don't think you can say it was unreasonable to worry about the safety of the scene When the paramedics who came decided on the loading go And delayed treatment because they perceived the scene the scene that was also that was after but hold on There's a sequence of events that I think matters here, right? You know, that's after chauvin had kept His weight on george floyd's back for you know, quite a long period of time, right? The paramedics assessment of the situation in its Wholeness and it's in its fullness is different than How the scene was merely, you know, four minutes prior Uh, how do you factor that into it the paramedics assessment shouldn't be gospel here? Well, uh, well the paramedics assessment they're coming on a scene. They're they're seeing that there's a Hostile angry crowd after that the crowd was Seemingly, you know without having been there seemingly less hostile Earlier in the act before it had become so clear that Two minutes or I mean we're talking about three minutes like three minutes. I mean each well, I mean three minutes Yeah, no three very consequential minutes, right? I mean the crowd Was george floyd was unconscious Yeah, the crowd was was was crescendoing crescendoing throughout this, right? And that they peak one around the the ambulance gets there But again Of the scene might have been different than the assessment of the safety of the scene three minutes prior Right, they they seem to be they seem to be peaking when they notice that he has gone limp um, and that that's one of the the key questions that Bradley raises in his piece that I'd like you to answer just directly Which is that you did not mention in the piece that chauvin kept kneeling on him After he went limp and had no pulse. Isn't that a pretty crucial piece of information? Okay, where there's like four different arguments floating here. I think I have to address so I could That one right there Again mercil, it's not a matter of what you or I think looks reasonable, right? It's a matter we're talking about putting someone in in prison for murder for an unlawful use of force so it's a matter of whether They were authorized and trained to do certain things right and mercil testified that they have they're trained That there are situations where you can hold someone you've just made unconscious Even after they're unconscious Right, this is what they're trained that you can continue to hold someone in in certain situations even after they're unconscious and uh, it's it's possible it's there's a reasonable explanation where They're also trained to worry that someone who has just gone unconscious later comes Comes back and starts fighting You know twice is hard and and this was all in the trial. This is all in their training But you keep saying if you prefering to mercil and saying this sort of thing that he testified to And they're also By the way, they're also they're also they're also trained that if you're talk if you're talking you're breathing I'm not saying that this is true. I'm not saying that you or I believe this I'm saying that this is this is what they were trained on But are That that is not that's a common myth in policing. That's not what they're trained on. They're not trained The defense asked johnnie mercil Have you been trained or do you train that if you're talking you're breathing and he said yes You you're taking hypothetical deep hypotheticals that This is the This is what this is this is what you don't train leg neck restraint with officers in service And as far as I know we never have that's a direct quote from mercil you're paraphrasing mercil when asked You want that you you should use the least amount of force necessary to meet your goals You can use a lower level force to meet your objectives safer and better rather than you're quoting You're quoting from a different side. They weren't floated chauvin did to floyd is not taught by mpd He explicitly said that Yeah, yeah, I he said a lot of things he also said that a knee on the neck is something that happens in use of force and is Not unauthorized That's a double negative I was quoting from a different part of mercil's where he was asked You're quoting from a question the defense posed In the context of hypothetical deliberately to get him to say the kinds of things that you're quoting him from now When he was asked to really it was not hypothetically. Well chauvin did to floyd. He said over and over again Bradley it wasn't a hypothetical it was and that was rally it wasn't hypothetical It was a simple question Do you teach or train or are you trained? That if you're if you're if you're talking you can breathe they said That's so when you asked specifically about what chauvin did to floyd He said over and over that it was not trained and that it was excessive force Hey, thanks for watching that clip from our show just asking questions You can watch another clip here or the full episode here And please subscribe to reason's youtube channel and the just asking questions podcast feed for notifications when we post new episodes every thursday