First of all, whether or not Derek Chauvin had intent to kill when he was called to the scene or before he kneeled on Floyd's neck is irrelevant. I have no idea why you think it is relevant, but feel free to explain.
To prove second degree murder, the prosecution has to prove that Chauvin recklessly endangered George Floyd's life knowing that his conduct could have killed him. So they don't have to prove intent; they only have to prove that a reasonable person would have known that kneeling on someone's neck that was prone on the ground for a certain length of time, with a knee (or multiple knees) pressed into them could be fatal. Derek Chauvin's police chief, lieutenant, and every single other colleague that was called to the stand all testified that Derek Chauvin would have indeed known that was inappropriate, and contrary to both the police policy and police training that Chauvin received.
The policy is clear: an officer may use kneeling techniques and body weight to gain compliance if someone is resisting arrest, and yes may even use a taser or pepper spray to gain compliance. However once someone is cuffed, you are not allowed to continue kneeling; you have to put the suspect on their side. It is a clear-cut policy, so the defense has no shot in saying the amount of force Chauvin used was correct and appropriate. The ONLY way they can win is by convincing at least one single juror that George Floyd died solely from a drug overdose.
Cops, including Chauvin, receive training that instructs on the dangers of lying someone in the prone position. The training says that once you handcuff someone and they are prone, you have to immediately turn them on side into recovery position. The reason you must do this is because even if you do not put body weight on the person, their body's natural reaction from being in that position could put them into shock and cause death regardless of what else is going on. Despite Greyparrot insisting it doesn't matter that Chauvin broke police protocols, it absolutely does matter because it proves he acted in a way that he was trained could cause serious bodily harm if not fatal injury. That is what matters in proving second degree murder, the highest charge against Chauvin (and the only one that's really relevant).
And tbh I'm kinda shocked ya'll are so confident that he will walk. The only reason I worry he will is that is people are such cucks for cops. But your interpretation of what's happening is just so ridiculously bad and off base lol. Saying Nelson "destroyed" state witnesses? What the hell are you even talking about? All he had the cop admit to is that Chauvin didn't use more force than he did, which is completely irrelevant because no one is claiming otherwise.
The first question is whether Derek Chauvin acted wrongfully, i.e. inconsistent with police training, standard practice, and decent humanity. The prosecution has proven that to be true. The second question is whether Chauvin or a reasonable person would have known that his behavior could potentially fatally injure this person. In the same fashion (policy explanations) the prosecution has proven that to be true. The third question is causation, whether or not Chauvin's behavior DID cause fatal injury. That is the only thing the defense can dispute at this point, i.e. saying Chauvin did nothing wrong and Floyd would have died of a drug overdose even if Chauvin hadn't done what he did.
The defense has to convince the jury that Floyd would have died all on his own. The fact that Floyd was on drugs and had coronavirus (thereby making him even more susceptible to things like cardiac arrest or asphyxiation) was not only known by all the officers, which isn't a good look for the amount of force they used on him against all their training for 9+ minutes, but also cannot be used as a defense for Chauvin per the eggshell plaintiff doctrine. So I really don't see how Chauvin gets off here but stranger things have happened.
