There was a rookie who asked if they should turn Floyd. Chauvin said no. The question isn't one or orders, but rather, why didn't they stop Chauvin?
For the (2?) Rookies, I would think that the defenses are more along the lines of:
- As a rookie I have received only basic training
- As a training officer I believed Chauvin knew much more than me, including what holds were safe
- Chauvin exuded calmness and confidence in his decision making, reinforcing that he knew more than me, and that it was safe
- as a result, I believed that there was no risk to Floyd's life
Additional arguments could
- I didn't believe he had much pressure on his neck, as he was squatting (I'm not saying this is a good argument - but perhaps the one furtherest from Chauvin might use it)
- they told me multiple people complain so that you loosen your grip and they kick out
- as a rookie, I felt I need to take this at face value from much more experienced officers
Ie. It very likely won't be an argument of following orders, but rather, one of belief in what was the appropriate use of force (as it is Chauvin's use of force that lead to Floyd's death, rather than orders issued by Chauvin).
Chauvin was in a position to know
that his deeds would or could lead to Floyds death, and it is unreasonable to think otherwise. Look at the above, and see if you can come to a belief beyond reasonable doubt that rookies would similarly know that they were likely to kill Floyd (even recklessly or unintentionally)