Quote:

---

This kind of stuff has much more far-reaching consequences than just to the Floyd officers.

This is a shot across the bow for any experts who would consider offering testimony that is counter to the approved narrative.

Our society is being controlled more and more by leftist lynch mobs: politics, judicial system, mainstream media, social media, and entertainment. Scary stuff.

---

From Judge Cahill’s ruling on #DerekChauvin and cruelty: pic.twitter.com/62HnyzQJET

— Jason DeRusha (@DeRushaJ) May 12, 2021

Quote:

---

They tried to let him sit in an air conditioned car. But he fought with them. And that is how he ended up on the hard pavement with a knee holding him down. It was Floyd's stupidity, not Chauvin's "cruelty" that caused that particular hardship for Floyd.

---

HtownAg92 said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

HtownAg92 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Cahill will enhance Chauvin's sentence.

Quote:

---

Judge Cahill ruled that the following four sentencing aggravating factors will apply:

• Chauvin abused a position of trust and authority
• Chauvin treated George Floyd with "particular cruelty"
• Children were present during the crimes
• Chauvin committed the crime "as a group with the active participation of at least three other persons"

Judge Cahill, however, ruled that Floyd was not "particularly vulnerable." Read Judge Cahill's full ruling here.

---

Link

---

Wow. A politically-driven and consequence-aware jury may be excused somewhat for ignoring evidence. A sitting judge doing it is just incredible.

"Particular cruelty"? When? How? He just de facto assigned intent to kill.

I hope that the appeals court guts Cahill in their opinion for the numerous baffling errors he made through this trial.

---

I firmly believe Chauvin should have been found not guilty. However, having been found guilty, shouldn't Cahill work from the standpoint that Chauvin actually did commit 2nd degree murder?

If so, the only possible point of contention that I see is "particular cruelty" but even that I could agree with if you're working from the standpoint that Chauvin intended to kill him, did so in a very slow manner, and kept on well after Floyd had no pulse.

---

No, he should be working from a standpoint of what the evidence showed. A judge make findings and enter a judgment that is contrary to what the jury found if the evidence did not support the jury's verdict.

For a similar example, I had a judge enter a judgment as a matter of law, overturning the jury's verdict, on punitive damages because the evidence did not show malice or a reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiffs.

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

HtownAg92 said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

HtownAg92 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Cahill will enhance Chauvin's sentence.

Quote:

---

Judge Cahill ruled that the following four sentencing aggravating factors will apply:

• Chauvin abused a position of trust and authority
• Chauvin treated George Floyd with "particular cruelty"
• Children were present during the crimes
• Chauvin committed the crime "as a group with the active participation of at least three other persons"

Judge Cahill, however, ruled that Floyd was not "particularly vulnerable." Read Judge Cahill's full ruling here.

---

Link

---

Wow. A politically-driven and consequence-aware jury may be excused somewhat for ignoring evidence. A sitting judge doing it is just incredible.

"Particular cruelty"? When? How? He just de facto assigned intent to kill.

I hope that the appeals court guts Cahill in their opinion for the numerous baffling errors he made through this trial.

---

I firmly believe Chauvin should have been found not guilty. However, having been found guilty, shouldn't Cahill work from the standpoint that Chauvin actually did commit 2nd degree murder?

If so, the only possible point of contention that I see is "particular cruelty" but even that I could agree with if you're working from the standpoint that Chauvin intended to kill him, did so in a very slow manner, and kept on well after Floyd had no pulse.

---

No, he should be working from a standpoint of what the evidence showed. A judge make findings and enter a judgment that is contrary to what the jury found if the evidence did not support the jury's verdict.

For a similar example, I had a judge enter a judgment as a matter of law, overturning the jury's verdict, on punitive damages because the evidence did not show malice or a reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiffs.

---

I'm certainly not a lawyer and I'm not trying to argue, but that said... If a judge isn't supposed to take the jury's opinion into consideration, then why have a jury at all? Is it a case of if the judge is absolutely sure of something, then he overrides and if not, he defers to the jury? I'm not saying that Cahill should or shouldn't be absolutely sure about anything, just in general, I imagine there has to be some sort of threshold that is met.

I appreciate the feedback from actual lawyers like you and Hawg.

---

BREAKING: Minnesota officer's legal team makes new motion of prosecutorial misconduct - that the testimony of the medical examiner of George Floyd was coerced by the State and State agents pic.twitter.com/lhTypmEvZV

— Petrol Smuggler Poso (@JackPosobiec) May 12, 2021

Good Poster said:

---

BREAKING: Minnesota officer's legal team makes new motion of prosecutorial misconduct - that the testimony of the medical examiner of George Floyd was coerced by the State and State agents pic.twitter.com/lhTypmEvZV

— Petrol Smuggler Poso (@JackPosobiec) May 12, 2021

---

aggiehawg said:

---

From Judge Cahill’s ruling on #DerekChauvin and cruelty: pic.twitter.com/62HnyzQJET

— Jason DeRusha (@DeRushaJ) May 12, 2021

Floyd was talking and even yelling for well over four minutes of that time.

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

From Judge Cahill’s ruling on #DerekChauvin and cruelty: pic.twitter.com/62HnyzQJET

— Jason DeRusha (@DeRushaJ) May 12, 2021

Floyd was talking and even yelling for well over four minutes of that time.

---

Ho-lee Shyt. Turns out the jury AND the judge were watching a different case than you Ms. Hawg.

---

LDA9336 said:

---

Hawg has already admitted: " The law and the legal system that I was taught 40 years ago is not what I am seeing today."

Her opinions should he treated accordingly.

---

LDA9336 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

LDA9336 said:

---

Hawg has already admitted: " The law and the legal system that I was taught 40 years ago is not what I am seeing today."

Her opinions should he treated accordingly.

---

Oh please.

Do tell exactly how the law and the legal system has changed from 40 years ago.

I'd kind of need to know that info to evaluate it.

---

Not sure how you missed that I was quoting Hawg. You should direct your question to her.

---

Quote:

---

By all rights, Chauvin's convictions should be reversed on appeal and a retrial ordered by the appellate court. Sadly, I don't believe even the appellate courts will put the law above politics and fear of mob rule.

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Are there not thousands of criminal trials across the U.S. each year? Isn't a trial like this with the level of publicity and media coverage and politicians weighing in an incredibly rare and unusual situation?

How many other trials anywhere in the States is currently being talked about on this message board? None?

Understandable folks may disagree or disagree about the verdict in this case.

But generalizing this case as having any meaning in the state or future of our court systems...it is just one very rare type of case. I am leery of trying to read too much into any higher repercussions or meaning in it.

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Are there not thousands of criminal trials across the U.S. each year? Isn't a trial like this with the level of publicity and media coverage and politicians weighing in an incredibly rare and unusual situation?

How many other trials anywhere in the States is currently being talked about on this message board? None?

Understandable folks may disagree or disagree about the verdict in this case.

But generalizing this case as having much to stay about the general state or future of our court systems...it was just one very rare type of court case. I would be leery of trying to read too much into it. Regardless of which side you were on in this one.

---

richardag said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Are there not thousands of criminal trials across the U.S. each year? Isn't a trial like this with the level of publicity and media coverage and politicians weighing in an incredibly rare and unusual situation?

How many other trials anywhere in the States is currently being talked about on this message board? None?

Understandable folks may disagree or disagree about the verdict in this case.

But generalizing this case as having any meaning in the state or future of our court systems...it is just one very rare type of case. I am leery of trying to read too much into any higher repercussions or meaning in it.

---

Missed the Flynn trial did you. Or the Manafort or Stone trials.

---

🚨 EXPLOSIVE new filing from the legal counsel of former Minneapolis Police Officer Tou Thao. It is being argued that Dr. Baker (who conducted George Floyd’s autopsy) was threatened/coerced into changing his initial findings to include ‘neck compression’ & other false claims. pic.twitter.com/9eOrUY2hKL

— 𝒥𝒾𝓁𝓁𝒾𝒶𝓃 🇺🇸 (@_jmarie94) May 12, 2021

Quote:

---

Dr. Mitchell spoke with Dr. Baker before Dr. Baker finalized his findings on June 1, 2020. Id. During the conversation between Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Baker, the following transpired:

a. Dr. Mitchell "called Baker and said first of all Baker should fire his public information officer". Id.

b. "Then Mitchell asked [Baker] what happened, because Mitchell didn't think it sounded like Baker's words." Id.

c. "Baker said that he didn't think the neck compression played a part" Id. 27-CR-20-12949 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/12/2021 12:30 PM 3

6. Over the weekend, Dr. Mitchell thought about Dr. Baker more. Id. After the phone conversation between Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Baker, Dr. Mitchell decided he was going to release an op-ed critical of Dr. Baker's findings in the Washington Post. Id. Dr. Mitchell first called Dr. Baker to let him know. Id. The following transpired:

a. Dr. Mitchell called Dr. "Baker first to let him know that he was going to be critical of Baker's findings". Id. "In this conversation, Mitchell said, you don't want to be the medical examiner who tells everyone they didn't see what they saw. You don't want to be the smartest person in the room and be wrong. Said there was a way to articulate the cause and manner of death that ensures you are telling the truth about what you are observing and via all of the investigation. Mitchell said neck compression has to be in the diagnosis." Id.

7. Following the two conversations, on Monday June 1, 2020, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner issued a Press Release Report containing the final autopsy findings. See Exhibit 2.

a. The final autopsy findings included neck compression. Id. This was contrary to Dr. Baker's conclusion before speaking with Dr. Mitchell twice.

...

Under Minn. Stat. 609.27 subd. 1(3) Dr. Mitchell's conduct meets the elements to be found guilty of committing the crime of coercion. Dr. Mitchell orally made the threat to unlawfully injure Dr. Baker's trade unless Dr. Baker changed his autopsy findings. Dr. Mitchell told Dr. Baker to include neck compression in the final findings and warned Dr. Baker he was going to publish a damaging op-ed in the Washington Post. After Dr. Baker changed his findings, Dr. Mitchell did not publish the op-ed. Moreover, Dr. Mitchell unlawfully injured Dr. Fowler's trade by penning an open letter which resulted in an investigation into every death report in Maryland during Dr. Fowler's tenure. Dr. Mitchell has set the stage that he will threaten the trade and professional reputation of any physician who suggests that Mr. Floyd's death could be labeled as "undetermined".

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Are there not thousands of criminal trials across the U.S. each year? Isn't a trial like this with the level of publicity and media coverage and politicians weighing in an incredibly rare and unusual situation?

How many other trials anywhere in the States is currently being talked about on this message board? None?

Understandable folks may disagree or disagree about the verdict in this case.

But generalizing this case as having much to stay about the general state or future of our court systems...it was just one very rare type of court case. I would be leery of trying to read too much into it. Regardless of which side you were on in this one.

---