Talk:Trial of Derek Chauvin/Archive 1

Attribution
Not sure if an attribution template is needed or not, but this article seems to be based on:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derek_Chauvin&diff=prev&oldid=1014963500
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_George_Floyd&diff=prev&oldid=1014964069

Thanks, --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, attribution is required per WP:PATT. The creator alluded to it in their edit summary.—Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

"the first police officer in Minnesota to be charged in the death of a civilian"
Isn't this wrong? Wasn't Justine Ruszczyk a civilian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.62.184.213 (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * corrected this statement per the source: "Chauvin is the first white officer in Minnesota to be charged for the death of a black civilian." Tvc 15 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Court documents available at MCRO
Dozens or hundreds of court documents are available online gratis at Minnesota Court Records Online (MCRO) in full-text view. Examples: latest three at this moment: 3/31 Notice of Intent to Invoke Fifth Amendment Privilege and Motion to Quash Subpoena (1 p.), 3/30 Correspondence (1p.), 3/30 Discovery Disclosure (2p.); oldest three: 6/30/2020 Amended Criminal Complaint (8p.), 6/30 Certificate of Representation (1p.), 5/29 E-filed Comp-Warrant (7p.). This last is the original criminal complaint, "State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, vs. DEREK MICHAEL CHAUVIN". My understanding of the T&C is that they are under copyright of the State of Minnesota, so unlike for Federal government documents, it is not possible to upload them to Wikisource or Commons, but fair use is not restricted. An index of all available documents can be found at 27-CR-20-12646: State vs. Derek Chauvin. Mathglot (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Article title
Is the short form State v. Chauvin or Minnesota v. Chauvin? - as a WP:LAW member can you advise?  starship .paint  (exalt) 15:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally enough, I was dealing with a case like this just yesterday. My general understanding is that "State v. X" is correct as long as the case remains in state court. (Other states, like California and New York, use "People v. X". But in Minnesota, "State v. X" is the norm. See, e.g., this.) If the case is ever appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (most improbable, in my view), then "Minnesota v. Chauvin" (or "Chauvin v. Minnesota") would be correct. But "State v. X" remains correct as long as the case remains in state courts. (One example is Miranda v. Arizona, which once upon a time was "State v. Miranda.) Ultimately, the most important thing is creating redirects for, e.g., "Minnesota v. Chauvin", "State of Minnesota v. Chauvin", "[Derek] Chauvin trial", etc. But unless common usage coalesces around a different name, the article's present title is just fine. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you’ve enlightened me. Right move, .  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a short form, used on the MCRO website, and a long form for official documents, like warrants. For example, at the MNcourts summary page, it lists the case as "27-CR-20-12646: State vs. Derek Chauvin". (Note also the related case to the right, listed as "State vs. Tou Thao".) But if you click on the May 29, 2020 Complaint, the actual affidavit reads, "State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, vs. DEREK MICHAEL CHAUVIN". Mathglot (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For some reason I can't access mn.courts.gov directly. archive.is / archive.org solves that problem though.  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:LEGAL and Talk:Derek Chauvin, Unless needed for specificity, leave state names out of the title, e.g., use State v. Elliott, not State of Vermont v. Raleigh Elliott, et al., and redirect the latter to the former. See Category:U.S. state criminal case law. Tvc 15 (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason we're using a more official name like this, rather than Derek Chauvin Murder Trial or something like that, which is more recognizable to the average person? Finnigami (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good question! The two part answer I would give is:
 * Our Manual of Style suggests that articles about court cases should be named based on legal citation conventions. (MOS:LEGAL))
 * Thankfully, users who search for "Derek Chauvin Murder Trial" will be linked to this article via this redirect page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

David Pleoger
Did retired supervisory Sgt. David Pleoger testify as a witness in this trial? 76.190.208.61 (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes.  starship .paint  (exalt) 12:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

How much detail is typical for a trial wiki page?
Will there continue to be a list of all 500 witnesses with summaries? Important historical cases will more have a summary along with important points of contention. -Technophant (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I imagine it depends on how much it's covered. See O. J. Simpson murder case for example.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * At some point a discussion of including the names or not is gonna be needed. Key witness I can understand, but every witness isn't necessary. We may not know who to consider "key" until trial goes on more, and more important witness may be held to later in the witness calling order. WikiVirusC (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Expert Analysis by Use-of-Force Lawyer?
Just noticed the Testimony section for Prosecution Case is summarising what the prosecution is claiming, not what witnesses have actually testified. Might analysis by a subject matter expert be more useful e.g. https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/03/chauvin-trial-day-3-wrap-up-floyd-was-high-with-foam-around-his-mouth/? I am aware LI has been knocked back in the past because 'Blog' but this is an expert providing guest commentary and analysis of the case. Several admissions are noted in the linked article and other pieces about the trial as strongly supporting the defence, yet they're ignored in the current Testimony section. Thoughts? Does expertise trump approved sources? 01:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 人族 (talk • contribs)
 * In a theoretically perfect encyclopedia, expertise would complement approved sources, but I think you can already tell where I'm going with this. The word "insurrection" is simply not going over, given the reality of what those currently in control have already built up here. Maybe open with something less threatening-sounding, like casual cross-exam observations from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Chronology of witness testimonies
Is there a definitive chronology of the witness testimonies in the case? -Splinemath (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure about definitive but a lawyer is guest blogging and commenting on the trial. I'd assumed the section would be chronological i.e. in order of their testimony in front of the jury, but as it stands the section doesn't appear to be following that order. Indeed it is a little confusing. Thus I suggest a shuffle. From what I'm reading the actual order is: Williams, Hansen, Martin, Ross, Bravender (sp?), Smith, Zimmerman, Pleoger, Langenfeld, Arradondo, Mercil (Not yet included), Mackenzie (ditto), Stiger. Yes I've missed a couple of those listed, and several others not mentioned. Not all witnesses have relevant testimony. If necessary I can recheck the order for those I missed - just the minors and Blackwell I think. 人族 (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Testimony - Summary of the Prosecution Case, or Summary of Testimony by Prosecution Witnesses Including That Elicited During Cross?
Currently the Testimony section appears to summarise what witness said whilst questioned by the prosecution. It fails to address testimony made during the defence's cross and is thus misleading. Multiple witnesses gave damning testimony when called, but upon cross they undercut their own testimony, contradicted themselves, or proved the defence's case. Which standard is being used? Is the testimony section a summary of the prosecution's case, or a summary of the testimony of prosecution witness as elicited by questioning from both prosecution and defence? If the latter, significant work will be required. I'm happy to help but there's no point making changes if the section is not supposed to summarise the full testimony of witnesses. 人族 (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, sources say otherwise. For example, Pleoger testified for over 90 minutes ( he sat down at 1:46:10 and stood up at 3:19:30) and yet the sources only focus on just a few words in his testimony which were in response to the prosecution's questioning, see, , . It's extremely hard to give a fair summary of the witness testimonies when sources don't do it themselves. For example, per the testimony , Pleoger gave some statements toward the end that show that the officers were in a difficult position (around 3:18:00) when responding to the defence and these weren't picked up by the media. It's a shame we can't have a fair summary which discusses the fact that witnesses said lot's of things which may be contradictory or support the defence. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 12:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you think this video contradicts. Maybe the reason this (for example) is not being reported it it in fact draws no conclusions, nor is it a definite statement like "this was against procedure", at best it is conjectureal.Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This was just one example of the witnesses response to questions from the defence. There are other responses which I don't have the time to watch over. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 13:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then how do we know they are any more relevant? This is why we use RS, in theory, they are doing this for us.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Precisely. "In theory" they do do it for us. In practice, they do not. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 13:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then take it to RSN, as until they are found to not be RS they are RS. I am also going to say you need a bit more evidence than "well here is one example of defence conjecture they do not report".Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said they weren't reliable. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 13:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I am unsure what you want to change in the article if you do not question the soruices.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 13:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In light of this, I've added a Current Event tag. Very clearly neither "the whole truth" in this short recap, nor over half of what RS have conveyed. In time, this may be a complete article; until then, I recommend not removing the honest disclaimer. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good idea, thank you. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm suggesting https://legalinsurrection.com/tag/george-floyd-derek-chauvin-trial/ either as a primary source, or as a base source from which to search for approved sources for quotes\paraphrasing. The link is to articles by an internationally recognised specialist in self-defence law and former Guest Instructor\subject matter expert for the FBI who is providing guest commentary and analysis of the trial. I'd suggest it be made clear when testimony is on cross i.e. responding to the defence, rather than testimony arranged by the prosecution. In some instances the prosecution witness' most relevant testimony will be exclusively on cross e.g. MPD instructor & state expert stating he has done the same thing as Chauvin is being allegedly charged for, or noting the defence seeks to recall the witness for the defence as their testimony is so helpful. 人族 (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , per WP:BLOG, we shouldn't use that site as a source unless articles from it meet the exceptions mentioned in the policy. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Base source, sure. But not primary. As I noted above to a similar proposal, foreign reliable sources might be good for defense of the defence, less partial. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , per the article you link to: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert". As InedibleHulk notes however it should be possible to use the pieces as base source material for perspective then find an approved primary\RS. I may look at doing so later - go through the testimony list, cross reference with the LI articles, then provide bullet point info elicited in cross plus an RS cite if possible. I'll submit the end product as a new Talk thread as the Testimony will need a rewrite if we're to blend direct and cross points. 人族 (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's the exception I meant, although please note that it continues with "...whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Firefangledfeathers (talk) Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think his credentials are established - "... expert on the law of self-defense, and has been quoted in this context by the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post, and many other mainstream media, including nationally syndicated broadcast media." As to which articles, that I don't know. 人族 (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Expert on the law of self-defense is not necessarily an expert in police use-of-force.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Witnesses
I removed a couple things from the description of the witnesses as I felt they were unnecessary. The two were regarding Floyd's girlfriend, and the EMT who was off duty. The sentence regarding the gf being a "fellow addict" feels like character assassination to me. The sentence about the EMT being plain clothed and not carrying credentials doesn't seem necessary. Just my two cents. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Respectfully I disagree. The description lists her as an off-duty EMT and certified firefighter who was refused access to Floyd, but that's not true. A random passerby with no credentials by the name of Genevieve Hansen sought access. We now know she was an EMT and firefighter, but the police did not. This is a critical distinction. The fact said random passerby was abusive and forceful in her approach to police is also fact, but not pertinent to the witness description. 人族 (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not claim that the police knew that she was a firefighter. The fact is that she was a firefighter. We can always say that she did not have her credentials with her.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we? As far as I'm aware none of the RS address whether or not she had her credentials. I've found an NBC affiliate which has reasonably good coverage of the trial - not as good as Legal Insurrection, and am using that to source cross information to add to the Testimony section. One of the points is that Hansen stated something to the effect of one of the officers telling her that if she were a real first responder she'd know better than to interfere. Doesn't explicitly say no credentials but close enough. That'll be testimony rather than witness description though. Oh! While I remember I think I found a link to the witnesses from the first week. That'll provide the cite info you wanted, plus allow us to correctly arrange the testimony\witness list per chronological order. Will get onto that later though. 人族 (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Should read: "Genevieve Hansen, an off-duty emergency medical technician (EMT)-certified firefighter, witnessed Floyd's condition and wanted to treat him. She produced no identification and was not allowed." 108.53.222.173 (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Testimony Shuffle & Cross Additions
Okay so I've shuffled some of the Witness order per https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/derek-chauvin-trial-witness-donald-williams-genevieve-hansen-courteney-ross-alisha-oyler/89-8d859609-2970-493e-8fd8-4843e13963e1 which gives the order (and day) for each of the first witnesses who testified. Not all are listed on Wikipedia but we're skipping trivial additions right? When\if a week 2 article comes out that can be used to shuffle the remainder in the witness list and\or add any missing. I've left line breaks to divide the days up at this stage but a Day Xth Month title could be added if useful.

I looked for a second cite for the points raised by the subject matter expert & guest commentator and analyst on Legal insurrection given it's non-approved. Approved RS simply aren't covering the material but NBC affiliate KARE 11 appears to be doing a comparable job. Since NBC News is considered acceptable for use I'll assume its use won't automatically trigger anyone. I suggest the Testimony section be reworked per the actual order of appearance, as above, with the cross (or direct) material added. Given all the bits I'll do each witness separately with the reference, plus note content LI mentioned which KARE has missed. Assuming nobody screams about the material I, or someone else, can simply copy and paste it to the testimony section - sans LI notes.

On cross Williams continued to insist that a carotid choke only requires constriction of one side of the neck, but agreed the process causes loss of consciousness in seconds - far less than the 9 minutes Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck with Floyd still moving. He disputed the claim he grew increasingly upset and his language deteriorated as time passed, but grudgingly conceded to verbally assaulting officers saying 'if that's what the video shows'. He admitted later making a statement that he wanted to "beat the (expletive) out of the police officers." On redirect Williams described police involved as being "human #### show' - the judge sustaining a defence objection to the response.
 * Williams

She also testified that Officer Thao told her that if she really were a first responder :she'd know better than to get involved". (Append to current (direct?) testimony)
 * Hansen

On cross Hansen admitted she was not wearing her uniform when she approached the police. She also admitted to having never had public stop whilst she's tried to fight a fire and tell her she's doing it wrong. She insisted that people yelling at her or threatening her would not distract her. When informed police called code 3 for medical assistance 5 minutes prior to her arrival, Hansen refused to believe it stating that Fire Station #17 would have been able to respond in 3 minutes, and fire would have been able to respond sooner than medics. She admitted her tone deteriorated as time progressed but contended this was due to desperation. She acknowledged others in the crowd were yelling, and according to her interview transcript she'd described the crowd as 'heavy'. Her statement at the time also described Floyd as appearing "small and slim".

(LI has Hansen admitting to not showing any credentials when making her claim to police. The direct testimony addition sorta kinda covers this. Again no direct note beyond LI that Hansen was not a firefighter\first responder just a random passerby as far as police could tell, and one who was being unhelpful.)

On cross Martin revealed the crowd was "yelling and screaming" and that he had to hold a friend back from getting involved.
 * Martin

(LI notes "the state played a rather lengthy video of Floyd while he was inside the Cup Foods, and throughout Floyd’s demeanor is one of someone under the influence. Swaying, weaving, odd stretching motions, wincing, lots of erratic upper body movement, a little dance step performed in the middle of the store—to the point that other store customers backed up to give him additional space—and so forth". Unfortunately I haven't been able to see any mention of this abnormal conduct outside LI, which isn't being accepted here. Defence may make an issue of it later in the trial in which case this absence can then be addressed.)

On cross Ross testified that on March 6, 2020 Floyd "wasn't feeling good, his stomach really hurt, he was doubled over in pain" so she took him to the ER where he had an extended stay due to an overdose. A week prior to Floyd's death she had a similar experience - pills making her feel as she was going to die, but she was unsure if they were the same pills as caused Floyd's earlier OD.
 * Ross

Bravinder said they initially responded to a routine report of a mouth injury code 2 - no life threatening indications. This was upgraded 90 seconds later to code 3 - emergency response. Given the crowd the ambulance elected to drive away from the scene to get to an 'optimum environment' before starting resuscitation. Smith testified that he checked Floyd's carotid artery while officers were still on top of him. Officer Lane accompanied them as they left the scene and provided chest compressions. Smith also contacted the fire department for backup code 3 assistance to handle a cardiac arrest.
 * Bravinder\Smith

(As this is not cross this'll need to be interwoven with what's already present. The 90 second gap between code 2 and code 3, plus Smith having to call for fire support given Hansen's earlier testimony is likely important. The LI source notes that the angry, hostile, and imminently threatening crowd was an important factor in their decision to do a 'load and scoot' on Floyd, a term raised with Mackenzie later, but not apparently given coverage at the time. Video footage played during direct questioning has the voices of Williams and Hansen abusing officers.)

On cross Zimmerman admitted he neither actively patrols, nor is a use of force trainer, so his experience is primarily based on training. Despite previously stating he has never been trained to put his knee on a person's neck he admitted that reasonable or necessary force is always allowed, and that there is training which involves a knee on a shoulder. He also admitted that a person may be restrained whilst awaiting EMS, or even for their own safety.
 * Zimmerman


 * Pleoger\Langenfeld\Blackwell (Appear to have skipped these. Can check for cites on cross another time if useful.)

On cross Arradondo confirmed that both conscious and unconscious neck restraint techniques were permitted by department policy at the time of Floyd's death, and that he believes Chauvin used a conscious neck restraint. He also admitted that officer bodycam footage showed Chauvin's knee as being more on Floyd's shoulder blade than his neck..
 * Arradondo

Part-time use of force instructor for MPD since 2010, and in charge of such training at the time of Floyd's death. He introduced Brazilian jiu-jitsu training to the department, a style that focuses on leverage and body control, but also includes pain compliance techniques. (Add to witness section or unnecessary? Use cite info below if used.)
 * Mercil

On cross Mercil agreed that policework is unattractive and dangerous, that people lie about medical emergencies, and that subjects can start resisting after initially being compliant. He denied seeing Chauvin apply a chokehold, and stated that a neck restraint can cause loss of consciousness in under 10 seconds. Mercil acknowledged that officers have to make a judgement call on whether to risk removing handcuffs and rendering medical aid, factoring in considerations such as the crowd and being on a busy street. He confirmed an MPD training photo showing knee on shoulder, and stated that officer body camera images show Chauvin's knee placed between Floyd's shoulder blades whilst EMT checked for a pulse. He also admitted that he himself has used body weight to hold a person until EMS arrived, and stated that officers are trained to do so as long as needed to control them. Mercil also confirmed that officers are taught so long as a person can talk they can breath.

Officer Nicole Mackenzie is the medical support coordinator for the Minneapolis Police Department. Her primary responsibility is first aid education for new officers and current officers. She also trains officers on the use of Narcan, administered in the event of an overdose. (Witness section if useful. Use cite below.)
 * Mackenzie

On direct Mackenzie stated officers are taught to check responsiveness using a hierarchy of: Alert > Verbal > Pain e.g. by pinching someone's finger > Unresponsive. If no pulse is found CPR should be started immediately. She also denied teaching officers the ability to talk means the ability to breath as this is incomplete - respiratory distress is still possible.

On cross Mackenzie agreed medical aid should only be provided after ensuring the scene is safe, that factors such as traffic and bystanders would be considered, and EMS should be requested as soon as reasonably possible. When asked about 'agonal breathing' she explained this as an irregular gasp for air, and that in a noisy environment it could be mistaken for effective breathing. Mackenzie stated that officers are trained to recognise 'excited delirium' which is a combination of psychosis and agitation, with illicit drugs often a contributing factor. Symptoms include insensitivity to pain, or superhuman strength. When asked about 'load and go' Mackenzie said that sometimes it makes more sense to immediately leave the scene than attempt onsite CPR. It can be difficult to focus when safety is a concern, such a distraction can harm a patient, and thus fleeing from bystanders can be the best way to defuse things and provide care. Judge Cahill told Officer Mackenzie she will be recalled for a later part of the trial.

(LI has quite a bit on this but I've yet to look for cites.)
 * Stiger

Anyhow have a look, let me know if anything is grievously problematic. 人族 (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd be wary of coverage featuring "LIVE UPDATES": KARE Tuesday, March 30 4:45 p.m. / KARE Wednesday, March 31 5:15 p.m / KARE Friday, April 2 11:40 a.m. Tuesday, April 6 3:30 p.m. since they would contain far more detail than what is necessary. If everything is covered, then what is important? What we should be looking for are takeaways that RS is highlighting. For example, would Mercil agreed that policework is unattractive and dangerous be something that RS are highlighting as being a key point from his testimony? If RS is not doing so then it is WP:UNDUE to include that. I mean, just read what Reuters (a top-tier, neutral RS) reports below about key moments about Mercil, and compare it to what's written above.  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

For comparision, this was what was written about Mercil above. Big contrast in my opinion.  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It might be best to leave all this out until after the trial, we are not a newspaper.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with the two previous editors but to add, I am not at all satisfied that the article is presently very well-presented. For example we list the witnesses and then in the next section we list their testimony, for example:
 * Martin said "it would appear that [Floyd] was high" but that he was able to talk and communicate.


 * Well, who can remember who "Martin" is? I couldn't and I'm watching the trial each day.  If we continue to keep the two sections separate we need at least to use the full name when it is first used and mention their involvement, for example: "xxx Martin, the Cub food worker that served Floyd,..." But, it's not surprising that we all need to work to find the best way to present this information as it is, after all, the first time we have presented a live on-going trial.  Gandydancer (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to do some sort of link back to the Witness section? While I too get a little confused I simply mouse up and back down.
 * As regards live updates containing too much detail, that's exactly why I've used them. Other sources simply don't provide detail - I tried searching but it was mostly a waste of time. Articles frequently make no distinction between direct, cross, or re-whatever questioning and responses. Context matters. Yes everything is covered which is why we have to be selective as regards what's included and what's not. I'm certainly open to trimming the OP content e.g. 'policework is unattractive and dangerous' but if we ignore testimony on cross then we run into WP:DUE issues - specifically that the only testimony presented is Chauvin's guilt. Given some of the state's own witnesses have given evidence supporting Chauvin - Mackenzie is being recalled for the defence for instance, a failure to note testimony from cross is a serious problem. (The prosecution's questioning of defence witnesses will presumably be given equal treatment - or are we only reporting cross not direct then?)
 * Compare for instance the Reuters quote above to my own Mercil summary. The Reuters cross quote emphasises the issue with Chauvin being on Floyd's neck i.e. emphasises Chavin's guilt even on cross. This contrasts radically with the article I cite which has Mercil admitting to doing the same thing Chauvin is being charged for. And Reuters Mercil testimony - which I presume is on direct but it's not made clear, is not to be found within the livestreamed content. In rereading the livestream article I can find the passages which are the basis of the quotes but the Reuters quotes are the construct of the Reuters writer not Mercil. That would be fine if Reuters were paraphrasing but they're claiming direct quotation!
 * Slater said we're not a newspaper, but I'm not quite sure his point. Is it that Testimony ought to be short and succinct? Is it that we aren't to report on anything which might exonerate Chauvin? Is it ...? I'm open to cutting down length - the OP was first draft. Given my current versions are 1-6 lines and the current testimony is similar I'm not seeing a major issue on the face of it but I also don't know what length limits folk want to work with. If it's 2 lines max each for direct + cross, with any re-whatever's included in the total that's fine, but it'll take me a couple of days to do. 人族 (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) You appear to be accusing Reuters of fabricating quotes, but even a 'live updates' article can miss out certain quotes. Unless you have a transcript/video of all of Mercil's testimony, you cannot prove that the Reuters quotes were fabricated. (2) We are free to report anything that might exonerate Chauvin, as long as it is the focus of RS as a whole. Our mission is to report what RS focus on. Three top-tier RS (Reuters, Associated Press, Agence France Presse) focus on this quote from Chauvin: "stay away from the neck when possible". Your content fails to report this which raises the concern of WP:NPOV. It is not proven that the content you propose are WP:DUE.  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , barring access to a transcript, basically. More accurately they're turning a rough paraphrase into a quote that suits their article. If you want to call it fabricating news that's fine, but should we consider it RS then? Remember the Reuters piece on Mercil focuses on him stating 'stay away from the neck' whilst completely ignoring his admission that he has done the same thing as Chauvin. Alternatively consider the Reuters piece on Stiger. It states she is a 'national expert' and yet she has never testified in any state or Federal court as a use-of-force expert witness before. What is the basis then for claiming she is a national expert? You say we may only report what RS focus on, but other sources raise serious doubts about the reliability of the 'RS'. Oh within my Mercil cite there is a passage "Mercil said, MPD trains officers to stay away from the neck when possible, and "to put it on their shoulder and be mindful of position." That is not the same thing as the Reuters quote - difference in emphasis. I didn't include it in my paragraph suggestion as it's redundant - I included reference to training photos and officer camera footage. An AP news article actually partially addresses this - "Nelson showed Mercil several images taken from officers’ body-camera videos, asking after each one whether it showed Chauvin’s knee appearing to rest more on Floyd’s back, shoulder or shoulder blades than directly on Floyd’s neck. Mercil often agreed." The same piece however mentions states officers "... rebuffed offers of help from an off-duty Minneapolis firefighter who wanted to administer aid or tell officers how to do it." which again is fundamentally deceptive. Hansen was out of uniform, had no credentials, and was told by officers if she really were a first responder she'd know better than to interfere. It's fine to say use RS but we need RS to be honest, and the sources aren't. Without honesty in RS we'll end up with a lynch page not a neutral reporting of the facts. Now it is possible that RS will be more honest with the defence witnesses, but given the extreme cherry picking to date there's no way I'd put money on it!!! 人族 (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) you have not produced a transcript (or any other evidence) and you continue to insist that Reuters is fabricating a quote. That is unacceptable. (3) Stiger is a man. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Stiger if you got that wrong. You need not have testified before to be considered an expert. Stiger has reviewed 2,500 cases in which police used force. (4) You misunderstand neutral reporting of the facts as it applies to Wikipedia. RS are not required to be neutral, and we report on what they focus on.  starship .paint  (exalt) 07:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , as noted below the Jody throws me. I assumed Stiger was male but when looking at the witness list saw 'his' name was Jody and so concluded I was mistaken. A check of sources showed I was originally correct, the Jody just threw me a curveball. As regards 2,500 cases reviewed, what cases, what jurisdiction? 2,500 LAPD cases has limited relevance to MPD use of force. Oh am I supposed to be looking for a transcript. ... It'll certainly be interesting if that's available. Not sure it is but I can try looking for one. Thanks for that suggestion. As regards (4) - WP:NPOV - means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Except that we're not after views on a topic, we're simply after facts revealed in the trial. WP:BALANCE - Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. Given we're talking a trial the opposing viewpoint is what's being revealed on cross, and RSP are either ignoring this, or cherry picking cross material to reinforce the prosecution's argument - hence lynch mentality. If you prefer WP:IMPARTIAL - should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. As I see it we need to present the direct and the cross testimony. As it stands cross material is only being reported by RSP when it supports the prosecution. As it stands we're trying to pull a Pravda - they tell their truth, we dutifully report their truth, and neutrality and truth disappear out the window. As it stands we're creating a partisan piece whilst ignoring half the facts, but washing our hands and blaming RS for any partiality that may appear. That's not in keeping with the spirit or the letter of Wikipedia policies as I understand them. 人族 (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that we're not after views on a topic, we're simply after facts revealed in the trial. - we’re after the most important facts, not every single fact, otherwise we might as well print the entire court transcript. RS tells us what is the most important facts. Indeed, you have not established that the content you are proposing is prominent if you’re just relying on live updates. WP:FALSEBALANCE applies here.  starship .paint  (exalt) 10:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, by "reviewed 2,500 cases", they mean he was one cog in each's broader review machine. One fifth of a mid-level panel, mostly, he testified. No more or less valuable an opinion than his peers, not some great decider, just wanted ten thousand bucks. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Stiger Cross, ABC news
This is from the sources used, ABC news: "And the specific technique that you’re trained is for an officer to put his knee into what would be, like, the trapezius area, in between the shoulder blades at the base of the neck, right?" Nelson asked Stiger on Wednesday.

"Yes. The base of the neck," Stiger replied.

Nelson asked if that was "standard protocol, standard police practice, basically in every single department that you’re familiar with?"

"That I'm familiar with, yes," Stiger answered." Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for bring this to Talk. That quoted section is not evidence for your edit, which stated,
 * Stiger testified that the placement of Chauvin's knee between Floyd's shoulder blades was "standard protocol, standard police practice" and that the "prone hold" used by Chauvin is one that officers are permitted to apply
 * That source doesn't mention Stiger saying anything about (a) what Chauvin did being standard practice or (b) a prone hold. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The source said the technique of placing your knee between a suspect's shoulder blades, which is what Chauvin was earlier described as doing (previous paragraph, same source: "Eric Nelson, grilled Stiger on a series of photographs appearing to show Chauvin's knee on Floyd's shoulder blades at the base of his neck"), is "standard protocol, standard police practice", and he answered in the affirmative. I'm open to alternative formulations which directly quote the above, but you can't simply remove this, falsely claiming the sources do not support it.
 * Re "prone hold", while I did not quote it above, the source clearly says "Mercil, a use-of-force trainer for the Minneapolis police department, was shown the same series of photos and agreed it appeared to be a "prone hold" that officers are permitted to apply with the knee on people who are aggressively resisting arrest." Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you have a fair point to make about my revert being excessive. My concern was, and is, that your formulation was attributing potentially contentious comments to someone that didn't actually make them. Per BLP, I felt justified in reverting. I'm grateful to see you here discussing, and I think we can compromise on some neutral, supported language. It's a bit awkward, but here's a proposal:
 * On cross examination, Nelson asked Stiger if it was "standard police practice" to place a knee between the shoulder blades of someone resisting arrest. Stiger asserted that such a protocol was standard in all police departments he was familiar with.
 * What does everyone else think? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, that would be ok with me. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me add that I basically agree with Slatersteven, in the above section - we're not a newspaper, and all this blow-by-blow account of testimony is probably best left out of the article altogether. But to the extent we do it, it can't be a one-sided presentation of direct testimony on behalf of the prosecution, leaving out contrary testimony that emerges in cross examination. Kenosha Forever (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * However, keep in mind that we are presently covering the prosecution arguments and the defense arguments will take a week or so as well and then our copy will center more on what they offer. Gandydancer (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly. But there is quite bit that turn up in cross examination, too. Analysis I've read of days 7 and 8 of the prosecution's case was that these witnesses were not that great for the prosecution - as evidenced by the fact that the defense plans to call some of them up (e.g MacKenzie) as defense witnesses.
 * And to be fair, when we turn to the defense in a week or so, we should include pertinent information that comes up in the cross examination of defense witnesses. (to the extent we continue with this news-style coverage). Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * - your edit  was poor because it was plainly against reliable sources as above.  was right to revert.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 00:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry bud, ABC news is just as reliable as the BBC, probably more so for US domestic affairs and it supports my edit. Kenosha Forever (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - Direct quote of Stiger from Reuters -  Nelson asked Stiger whether he agreed that Chauvin’s knee was on Floyd’s shoulder blades rather than his neck. “It appears to be more above the shoulder blades than on the shoulder blades,” Stiger testified, not agreeing with Nelson.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 01:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And direct quote from ABC "And the specific technique that you’re trained is for an officer to put his knee into what would be, like, the trapezius area, in between the shoulder blades at the base of the neck, right?" Nelson asked Stiger on Wednesday. "Yes. The base of the neck," Stiger replied. Nelson asked if that was "standard protocol, standard police practice, basically in every single department that you’re familiar with?" "That I'm familiar with, yes," Stiger answered.. That is what the article currently says, and is fully supported by the ABC source. As I wrote, I don't think an encyclopedia should provide news-style daily blow-by-blow accounts of each testimony and cross, but to the extent we do, it can't be a one-sided presentation of only the facts favorable to the prosecution. Kenosha Forever (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want balance then we must acknowledge both - knee between shoulders is standard training, but Chauvin didn't place knee between shoulders.  starship .paint  (exalt) 01:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The quote above says "Yes. The base of the neck,"  is ""standard protocol, standard police practice". And that is what we report. Kenosha Forever (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that's not true . It depends which angle\camera you look at as to what the placement is. Some footage shows knee between shoulders, other footage knee on neck. Unless the footage is timecoded and cross matched then either Chauvin moved his knee throughout the process - not something anyone is claiming as far as I know, or we have a basic high school physics issue - what the observer perceives to be true is dependent on where they are observing from. (Think speedometer reading looking different to the driver and the passenger because of the angle involved). Thus Chauvin could have placed his knee on Chauvin's Floyd's shoulder, with the mob perceiving it as on his neck. 人族 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We rely on what reliable sources say. Do they bring up misleading angles? —Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Constantly, since day one. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - we are not talking about the mob. We are talking about Stiger's testimony. His testimony is that Chauvin didn't place knee between shoulders. That is his perception.  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the "neck area", "the base of", "more above the shoulder blades", same as Stiger and Nelson, not the neck itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fine to say what Stiger said about standard practice. It's just that he didn't say Chauvin followed standard practice. Leave that connection for the reader to make or not. —Bagumba (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Stiger\the state are moving the goalposts though. The state started by claiming 'on the neck'. Now it is 'on the neck area' - this not being defined. (Are the shoulder blades part of the neck area?) Note too that Stiger was absolutely shredded on cross, but again this isn't reflected in the article. I've seen one piece (RS?) refer to Stiger as a national expert, except he's never testified before and his lack of experience showed. Stiger also testified that Chauvin used less force than he entitled to - Chauvin could have tasered and hobbled Floyd but chose to do neither. Again not reflected here. 人族 (talk)
 * Note too that Stiger was absolutely shredded on cross, but again this isn't reflected in the article - this is not even reflected on this talk page, but here you are presenting this as fact. You said I've yet to look for cites on Stiger.  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is Stiger's bit six times bigger than the rest, anyway, especially considering he's one of the few completely uninvolved witnesses? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * According to RS he's a national expert of use-of-force. Being uninvolved means there isn't a comflict of interest.  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Being paid by the State to testify on its behalf creates the conflict of interest. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Except he (Jody is apparently also a guy's name but it's confusing) has zero, I'll say it again, zero experience in testifying in any state or Federal court as a use-of-force expert witness. Please explain how you can have a national expert with zero experience, and whose personal experience is LAPD not MPD! His $10,000 461 page report only contains 26 pages of substantive analysis and opinion, and Stiger himself doesn't know the content. And what about statements like "I’ve seen even small suspects be even more dangerous than large ones"? I mean own goal much??? Stiger was a blessing for the defence which spent 65% longer questioning him than the prosecution did - discounting time spent establishing credentials, training, experience etc. Again RS aren't noting this material, but the jury will be. As it stands there's a serious problem and I don't see how it can be addressed by a demand that RS act as gatekeepers for what article readers are permitted to think - we're only giving them half the picture, if that. What happens if after presenting all the RS material that shows why Chauvin needs lynching the jury return a verdict of not guilty? Do we declare them wrong on the basis of the facts here? Yes I'm getting irritated by the bias here. 人族 (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I don’t think “expert witness” means an expert in being a trial witness, which seems to be what you are suggesting it must be. All I see is you undercutting RS without providing sources doing that undercutting, but clearly you have to get your information somewhere, so it’s either you’re too lazy/forgetful to provide RS, or that you’re getting your information from non-RS. If Chauvin is found not guilty then so be it. RS are gatekeepers for what information we present.  starship .paint  (exalt) 08:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, can we have a quote where Stiger either says "Chauvin had his knees in the small of the back" or says "yes" to being asked "did Chauvin have his knees in the small of the back" so fat all I can see is him being asked about a procedure, not whether it was used.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How the hell did we get to two knees and the small of the back? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK "Chauvin's knee between Floyd's shoulder blades" then not that is the procedure is that what Chauvin did.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's better. See above. The only "disagreement" is between whether the knee was on or above the proper spot. Which only a guy paid to argue would bother nitpicking, since nothing on anything is below it. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well no there is not, as he said he disagreed it was on the shoulder blades. So not he does not say they were on the shoulder blades.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you think he meant it was hovering "above the shoulder blades"? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the new testimony contracts his earlier (direct) statement that "Stiger testified that the video showed Chauvin not changing the force he applied to Floyd's neck area during the restraint.".Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You think the statement referring to Stiger is Stiger's statement? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No I think RS have said it is. However to the question "That particular force did not change during the entire restraint period?”" his response was "Correct" adding “He was in the prone position. He was handcuffed. He was not attempting to evade. He was not attempting to resist. And the pressure that was being caused by the body weight could cause positional asphyxia, which could cause death,” Again nothing sin any of the above has contradicted this. I think it is time for others to chip in.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So, this particular force...did he say it was on/above/applied to the "neck"? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I have raised this as RSN as it seems users are trying to claim that an RS saying " said that based on his review of video evidence, Chauvin's knee was on Mr Floyd's neck from the time officers put him on the ground until paramedics arrived - about nine-and-a-half minutes, by prosecutors' reckoning." is not good enough to say he said this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)