Floyd was engaging in active resistance when Chauvin arrived on the scene of the Cup Foods, Nelson said.

Nelson played the video from Nelson’s body camera that showed two other officers struggling to put Floyd into the squad car as evidence of Floyd's resistance.

Nelson explained that a reasonable officer at that point would determine that the amount of force being used by the officers trying to put Floyd into the car was not enough to overpower Floyd’s resistance.

After Nelson asked whether Chauvin’s actions were an authorized use of force by a police officer, he went into detail on how a reasonable police officer would have approached the situation.

A reasonable police officer wants to keep his fellow officers, civilians and the person being arrested safe, Nelson said. A reasonable police officer also thinks about resources, such as where the closest hospital is or what the response time for EMS would be.

The direct knowledge that a police officer would have when use of force occurs is information from dispatch, direct observations of the scene and whether the subject was under the influence of a controlled substance, Nelson said.

When Chauvin arrived on the scene of the cup foods, he saw the suspect, who was 6 feet or taller and appeared to be under the influence, Nelson said.

"The situation is dynamic, and it's fluid," Nelson said.

Nelson used a baking analogy to explain what is necessary to find a defendant in a criminal trial guilty.

"I say that the criminal case is kind of like baking chocolate chip cookies," Nelson said. "You have to have the necessary ingredients. You got to have flour, and sugar and butter and chocolate chips, and whatever else goes into those chocolate chip cookies. If you have all of the ingredients, you can make chocolate chip cookies. But if you're missing any one single ingredient, you can't make chocolate chip cookies. It's a simple kind of analogy. But the criminal law works the same way."

Chauvin removed his face mask as he watched Nelson’s closing argument.

Nelson, Chauvin’s attorney, began his closing statement by reminding the jurors that Chauvin is presumed innocent and does not have to prove his innocence.

Nelson also read the definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the judge read to the jury in his instructions earlier in the day.