Legal analyst: Floyd showed ‘no resistance’ that would justify use of force

ABC News’ Linsey Davis speaks with attorney Lance LoRusso, author of the book “When Cops Kill: The Aftermath of a Critical Incident," about the Derek Chauvin trial testimony and arguments.
6:00 | 04/08/21

Coming up in the next {{countdown}} {{countdownlbl}}

Coming up next:

{{nextVideo.title}}

{{nextVideo.description}}

Skip to this video now

Now Playing:

{{currentVideo.title}}

Comments
Related Extras
Related Videos
Video Transcript
Transcript for Legal analyst: Floyd showed ‘no resistance’ that would justify use of force
Attorney Lance Louis Roussel he's represented dozens of police officers is also the author of the book when cops killed the aftermath of a critical incident. Thank you so much for joining us your general impression of today was it a good day for the prosecution would dissent. The prosecution and things and he combine the witnesses they had to bury strong witnesses from B fear of criminal apprehension. Trying to get more information also need expert witness this sorry she's a source encounters a precursor to get ends and chemistry and the past couple of things we've heard from these witnesses. It's going to be very difficult for the lesion we're hearing and there were drugs I would methamphetamine and sentinel is probably the first time the jury is really starting to hear about that. Not only endorsed oil via Goldman also in the back of the patrol vehicle so the jury's gonna start getting innocent medical evidence and it's probably a good way to introduce and get a. Anywhere you Wear out or there were you able to tell what was said when we heard George Floyd. Talking you know reporters who were inside the courtroom described the jury is really leaning in at that point and I guess there's basically a dispute between whether he said I won't take no drugs or I ate too many drugs. I cannot make it actually heard that portion of the video before I've heard people fired it's been all over social media and things. The question is what attracted you have on the officer the officers believed he had taken a lot of drugs than what efforts were being change and as soon as he stopped resisting and is seen as he went limp to get him immediate medical attention. And that's where deep depraved mind that's where the intent to cause injury to ask for depriving medical treatment which is going to get to that of a mole negligence. Standard warranty second degree manslaughter. Because as an officer that's your duty right you you are. Responsible basically for getting medical treatment at a certain point correct. You are and an officer's you have been shot that live shot a suspect in immediately. They're gone back in the holster and credit tourniquet on the individual who is trying to kill -- that's what officers talk about let me talk about a warrior mentality and he ambled swished -- more immoral to another and they need from the likes a church even though that person was intending to cause the hardship that is going to need to biggest issues for the defense to overcome is the lack of medical treatment now. After clearly George Floyd was not a threat to anyone. The defense suggested again Derek children's name was on Floyd shoulder blades are the base of his neck and not on the neck itself there are also arguing their children's school week was not on Floyd. Take a listen now to Sherman's attorney questioning police use of force expert Sargent Jodi Steiger. And dismissal tech cool that you're trained is for an officer to put his. Need into what would be that make it true p.'s yes area in between the shoulder blades at the basin from the exodus of the and that is standard protocol. Standard police practice. And basically in every single department failure from our. That I'm familiar yes. Now from the trial it and you've seen does it look like children may have been on Floyd shoulder or the base of his neck and if that's true how strong of a defense without being. I think it's probably just like any other conversation news news probably moving around and very artfully our current restriction on his knee was on its snacks or nine minutes it's extremely difficult to keep anyone in a position. I'm like that for that long so I would accept and I expected when I heard the trial starting that there would be testimony that Disney was everywhere on the middle and his shoulder blades up to his neck. So when we're looking at the compression. Ring cage is a post that compression she is now you colonel about socialistic -- the question is going to be is whether or not his. Actions actually cause the death. By eighty deprivation of auction in or are making it difficult for him debris. I'd like to also ask about another defense argument from today the suggestion that Floyd's words I can't breathe when police were trying to get him into the car this was before showing put his knee on Floyd's neck. Was Floyd resisting arrest and at that moment in an does that help children's case. It's getting cum two I'm perceptions that you have officers they're and that's a real question as to whether or not and here we're gonna testify and I don't owe it to our charms to testify. You know the jury can look at the video and as she seems it's difficult to get somebody in the back on patrol car if they are not anything under an and cooperative. So if that person is either moving around squirming and one Indian of the car not shifting their camps or just standing straight and preventing usual green in the car. It is a former house is a corporate resistance. And lastly taking a step back now the State's use of force expert testified enjoy actually did not pose a threat to the officers on the scene that day. From what you've seen and heard in this case do you think if that's true. When he was on the ground without a doubt there is no use of force by George Floyd there was no resistance fighters Floyd which could justify. They use of force by the officers especially towards the end of that interaction and one of the things is very good about the public is finally finally seeing exactly what the research. An analysis goes into the use of force by an officer. Especially when in doubt occur so we have chemistry we have I'm pictures we have video everything being analyzed. And all of these factors lead to neck case Grammer says Connor. Where do you officers' actions are judged based on what the officer knows that the timing and the actions of the suspect the officers' actions are always reactive which sometimes makes law enforcement extremely dangerous. But when there is no reaction from the suspect when there is no resistance they're supposed to be consummate. Dropped to enforce. So there is no force being used if there's no force or resistance by a suspect. Attorney lists or so appreciate your insight thanks so much for talk for us thanks for government.

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

{"duration":"6:00","description":"ABC News’ Linsey Davis speaks with attorney Lance LoRusso, author of the book “When Cops Kill: The Aftermath of a Critical Incident,\" about the Derek Chauvin trial testimony and arguments.","mediaType":"default","section":"ABCNews/US","id":"76934430","title":"Legal analyst: Floyd showed ‘no resistance’ that would justify use of force","url":"/US/video/legal-analyst-floyd-showed-resistance-justify-force-76934430"}