The thing that baffles me the most about the documentary is the obsession with the MRT or Maximal Restraint Technique. Again in this interview they flat out accuse Mpls Police Chief Arradondo of committing perjury. In the film over and over again they claim that Arradondo testified in court that he did not know what the MRT was and seem to make this the centerpiece of their argument that Derek Chauvin did not receive a fair trial.
But the MRT was discussed at length in the first six days of the trial I have watched and with multiple witnesses. There were no real "gotcha" moments as presented in the documentary. To understand the full context I would recommend watching Arradondo's full testimony on Day 6. Below I have 5 clips of Arradondo's testimony. Note his answer to exhibit 17 lasts about 7 minutes and is not the few second snippet presented in the film. It should also be noted that Arradondo had concluded that this was a neck restraint and not an MRT, but he discusses the MRT for both the defense and prosecution. On Day 4 of the trial Sgt. David Pleoger also testified in detail about the MRT. I have also included Katie Blackwell's testimony.
I am at a complete loss as to understand how anyone who actually watched the trial could make this assertion.
In all these clips the witnesses are being asked to testify based on a still photo taken from the recording of a bystander. This is the same picture that went viral in the media. Viewed from that angle it easy to see how they could deny this as an acceptable position for restraint. The film adds a lot more context with views from a different perspective. It doesn't look, from these clips, like that context and perspective was being considered here.
The thing that baffles me the most about the documentary is the obsession with the MRT or Maximal Restraint Technique. Again in this interview they flat out accuse Mpls Police Chief Arradondo of committing perjury. In the film over and over again they claim that Arradondo testified in court that he did not know what the MRT was and seem to make this the centerpiece of their argument that Derek Chauvin did not receive a fair trial.
But the MRT was discussed at length in the first six days of the trial I have watched and with multiple witnesses. There were no real "gotcha" moments as presented in the documentary. To understand the full context I would recommend watching Arradondo's full testimony on Day 6. Below I have 5 clips of Arradondo's testimony. Note his answer to exhibit 17 lasts about 7 minutes and is not the few second snippet presented in the film. It should also be noted that Arradondo had concluded that this was a neck restraint and not an MRT, but he discusses the MRT for both the defense and prosecution. On Day 4 of the trial Sgt. David Pleoger also testified in detail about the MRT. I have also included Katie Blackwell's testimony.
I am at a complete loss as to understand how anyone who actually watched the trial could make this assertion.
Arradondo
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5099919/user-clip-day-6-exhibit-17
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5099920/user-clip-day-6-mrt
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5099924/user-clip-day-6-mrt-2
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5099918/user-clip-day-6-neck-restraints
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5099922/user-clip-day-6-defense-neck-restraint
Pleoger
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5099751/user-clip-day-4-pleoger-testimony
Blackwell
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5099925/user-clip-day-6-blackwell-testimony
In all these clips the witnesses are being asked to testify based on a still photo taken from the recording of a bystander. This is the same picture that went viral in the media. Viewed from that angle it easy to see how they could deny this as an acceptable position for restraint. The film adds a lot more context with views from a different perspective. It doesn't look, from these clips, like that context and perspective was being considered here.