The defense continued the next morning with testimony from a traffic-safety instructor who explained the hazards created by an obstruction inside a crosswalk. The instructor was careful. He said an officer had a legitimate responsibility to protect pedestrians and drivers from an unexpected hazard, but he did not endorse pulling a person from a mobility device or tipping a chair to hurry a crossing. Price asked him whether urgent circumstances could justify physical intervention. The witness replied that urgency had to be assessed from the actual danger, the alternatives available, and the person's ability to comply.
A retired supervisor who had once worked with Derek spoke about his history of handling emergencies decisively. He recalled a house fire where Derek helped residents evacuate and a winter collision where he carried blankets to stranded motorists. Harlan listened without resentment. These events might well be true, and their truth did not make the crosswalk encounter false. Human beings were seldom consistent enough to be easily sorted into perfect heroes and pure villains.
The prosecutor did not attack the supervisor for remembering good work. Wyatt asked whether an officer's past helpful acts excused unreasonable force in a later incident. The witness said no. He asked whether the supervisor had been present at Fourth and Elm. Again, the answer was no. The testimony offered context about Derek's service without changing what the recording showed.
Derek decided not to testify after consulting his attorney. He had that right. The judge reminded jurors that they must not draw any adverse inference from his decision. Derek sat almost motionless while the closing arguments approached, his face drawn and tired. He had spent months imagining that the right explanation could undo the video. The trial had demonstrated that explanations could be tested against records and witnesses, and that the more facts were examined, the less room his preferred story seemed to have.
Wyatt's closing statement returned to the crosswalk rather than the badge. He reminded jurors that Harlan had been lawfully crossing when the honey fell, that assistance had been available, and that the officer had chosen to seize the chair after being told why the man had stopped. He played a brief segment in which Caleb offered to clear the glass. Then he showed the moment Derek rejected that offer and used force.
"The law does not demand perfect manners from a person caught in a difficult moment," Wyatt said. "It demands that an officer exercise authority within lawful limits. This case is about an officer who knew he could choose a less harmful response and chose otherwise."
He addressed the issue of intent directly. The defendant's first report had described conduct not supported by the recording. After the retirement identification appeared, his manner changed dramatically. The prosecution argued that these facts, taken with the video, testimony, and circumstances, demonstrated a willful disregard for the rights of the person he confronted. Wyatt did not ask jurors to punish Derek for every rumor about his career. He asked them to judge the act they had seen and the evidence admitted in court.