Joe Biden stands firmly with the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict…. OUR SYSTEM WORKS!

mobbinfms

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
37,462
Reputation
15,579
Daps
94,259
Reppin
TPC
What do you mean they won’t vote for him? You’re implying white people are not white supremacist just because they are Democrats?
White supremacy, to me, is an institutional problem baked into every facet of American society. When I use the term “white supremacist” on an individual level, I’m referring to the alt right, white nationalists, the Unite the right crowd, Trump supporters, all lives matter, Rittenhouse supporters, the loud and proud racists, etc. Trump has this vote locked down. If you’re using the term, on an individual level, in a different way, let me know so we can get on the same page.
He said he personally agreed with the verdict when he said “I stand by the verdict”
No. He was voicing support for the judicial system as a whole. I stand by this verdict and the system, even though it makes me angry and concerned. I understand how you could come to that conclusion by cherry picking one part of what he said (and adding an exclamation point like OP did in the thread title). But what he meant is crystal clear if you evaluate everything he said.
If he personally disagreed with the verdict he would say that.
He did. When he said that the verdict made him angry and concerned.
Also, you know what a swing state is. You know the same white people that are liberal Democrats one election cycle and then conservative republicans the next.
Sure. The country swings from center left to center right. Liberal Democrat to conservative Republican is more more rare. At least over a four year period.
 

mobbinfms

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
37,462
Reputation
15,579
Daps
94,259
Reppin
TPC
First of all it’s called case law and that’s exactly how legal precedence works
No. Legal precedent is based on appellate cases. This is not an appellate case. If the verdict is appealed, precedent could be set, but again, it would be Wisconsin law. It would not be binding precedent in other states. In MD, trial court level decisions are appealed to the Court of Special Appeals and even then most of those opinions are not published and cannot be used as binding precedent. The Court of Appeals, grants certiorari on a very small number of cases from the Court of Special Appeals and sometimes takes cases directly from the trial court level. I’m not an appellate lawyer but I have argued a small number of cases before the Court of Special Appeals.
I don’t practice law in Wisconsin, so things could be very different there, but I highly doubt it. If you are an appellate lawyer, or lawyer of any kind, practicing in Wisconsin, I’ll defer to you on this.
Thats is also how a legal precedence works because this a trial by jury that is national news so when a jury in another state with stand your ground laws is deliberating on a similar case, this case will be in the back of their minds and influence their decisions. If another white kid decides to go to a black protest to provoke protestors so that he’ll can finally use his new toy (AR-15) they will think “if Kyle rittenhouse was innocent then so is this person.” and don’t dare say they are only supposed to use the facts in the case because this is America and the only rules that apply are “I’m white and I say so”
I agree with this 100%. This is the real danger from this verdict. It will embolden other white supremacists. But that has nothing to do with case law and your last point proves that point.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
12,037
Reputation
1,952
Daps
38,878
Reppin
Bucktown, U.S.A. (Harlem, NY) + 'Cuse, NY
I think it's safe to say that no President would ever negatively question its own law/judicial (or any) system even if they may believe it to be faulty.

A President's job is to not cast doubt in the system, the American system, politically, it'd be bad optics and press to do so.
 

T.H.E. Goat

I alone am the honored one
Supporter
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
17,093
Reputation
4,789
Daps
59,244
Reppin
Where The Grass Is Blue
This isn’t “cac on cac” problems. They just set the legal precedent that white people from all over the country can storm black protests and kill people indiscriminately and won’t even get a weapon possession charge.
Why do people keep saying this?? Precedent was already set a long time ago. Why do you think the little cac was so confident in going to Kenosha strapped up…he thought it was his DUTY to stop rioters that’s what happens when precedents are already in place
 

winb83

52 Years Young
Supporter
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
49,012
Reputation
4,208
Daps
73,766
Reppin
Michigan
I think it's safe to say that no President would ever negatively question its own law/judicial (or any) system even if they may believe it to be faulty.

A President's job is to not cast doubt in the system, the American system, politically, it'd be bad optics and press to do so.
Donald Trump
 
Top