Chauvin 'objectively reasonable' with Floyd -witness

But when later cross-examined by the prosecution, Brodd acknowledged that if Floyd was experiencing pain while in the prone position, and was not resisting arrest, then the use of restraint by Chauvin was not justified.

Brodd was among the first witnesses called by the defense to testify.

Chauvin has pleaded not guilty to murder and manslaughter charges for pinning Floyd's neck to the ground in the deadly arrest on May 25, 2020.

Video Transcript

- A reasonable police officer standard, again, is a reasonable police officer who has used force in an instant-- can they consider that in prolonging a detention or a prone control of a suspect?

So if the officer was justified in using the prone control and now the suspect is on the ground in a prone control, the maintaining of the prone control, to me, is not a use of force.

- Why is it not a use of force?

Because that's a control technique. It doesn't hurt. You've put the suspect in a position where it's safe for you, the officer, safe for them, the suspect. And you're using minimal effort to keep them on the ground.

- So just to kind of wrap up, could you summarize the final opinions that you have made in this case?

I felt that Officer Chauvin's interactions with Mr. Floyd were following his training, following current practices in policing, and were objectively reasonable.

- Thank you. No further questions.

- If Mr Floyd actually experienced pain, would that change your opinion? Would it be then a use of force, if pain was actually inflicted upon Mr. Floyd?

BARRY BRODD: If the pain was inflicted through the prone control, then yes, I would say that was a use of force.

- Are you aware of how the Minneapolis Police Department defines force?

BARRY BRODD: Not specifically, no. I would have a general understanding of it.

- Generally, would you agree-- or based on your review-- would you accept that the Minneapolis Police Department generally defines force to include restraint?

BARRY BRODD: It can.

- Particularly if it's restraint that could result in some sort of injury or pain?

BARRY BRODD: Yes.

- And so you would agree then, just as we are at this point in your testimony, that what we saw in exhibit 17 would at least fit within the Minneapolis Police Department policy of a use of force? Fair?

BARRY BRODD: Yes.

- You've agreed that exhibit 17, what we saw here in this case was likely to produce pain? True?

BARRY BRODD: It could.

- And so if someone is not resisting and they're compliant, the use of something-- control, as you put it-- that could produce pain is just not justified, is it?

BARRY BRODD: No.