Please don't hate on this, I really enjoy law, I'm not qualified and I live in another country.

My understanding of the defence evidence was that Chauvin didn't use excessive force, in fact he stayed exactly by the book? GF committed a crime, was arrested, resisted arrest, visibly fought off 3 officers and requested to be laid on the ground. In my opinion he was a flight risk, had the potential and showed signs of being unpredictable and potentially becoming difficult again if not 'restrained'.

If the policing policies and practices were on trial, yes, guilty, but Chauvin stuck to his training, policies and practices?

Yes, Chauvin was a factor in the death, but wasn't it in the autopsy that the injury was to his shoulders and not his neck?

Again, just curious.