He shouldn't have said anything about the results of the trial. That's out of his purview as president.

What he said was, "While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken."

That's essentially saying he doesn't accept the results, which is a slap in the face to all the jurors who sat through all the testimony and deliberated on the verdict with pressure of possible retaliation.

All Biden did was turn to Kamala and ask, "Is he guilty" and went that direction. He's pandering.

He can be angry at the law that led to the verdict and want to have it changed. That surely is well within his remit.

Whether or not it is true in this case, there are certainly many times that a black defendant would be found guilty while a white defendant would not, given the exact same evidence. However, this should be a reason to acquit black people who are now found guilty, rather than an argument to convict white people who aren't.

why the **** are people still talking about that ****ing guy a year later? he hasnt been in office or on twitter for a year yet I still see his name be brought up. i thought we were tired of him

That depends

Frequently 'privilege' is how everyone should be treated.

Of course, but that's not why he said he was angry; he was angry because he thinks the jurors intentionally let a guilty person go free.

I notice the really important question is going not just unanswered, but completely ignored. Makes me wonder if some of you are in on this.

And of course, that question is...what about the bricks? The ****ing bricks???


I mean, they've been there since the summer of 2020, unused. What is the real plan for them?

I could, but then my post would be peppered with what the moderators might consider "violent sexual imagery" and give me a time-out. I'll stick on "**** you".

To build a jail to lock Biden up, ldo.

People are saying reverse the roles and a black defendant would go to jail in this specific case. When in all probability a black person would appear to be getting lynched, as in what happened in the Arbery case, and wouldn't be punished for self-defense if Arbery had a gun and used it. No one is disputing that black people some times get charged for things white people get off on. Your last sentence really has nothing to do with my statement.

Right. Some conservative blogger allegedly head him say something so it's a fact. If you have to go there do you really have a case?

Some white people do indeed get off on black people being charged.

Trump owns the Republican party. Both Trump and Trumpism is still very relevant and indications are Trump will run for president again.

There is essentially little difference between the two cases you reference. They both hinge on when can someone legitimately use lethal force in self defense.

To that question, let me explain to you what you saw or what you know that's relevant. I know what that is because it's the same thing I saw and know. You saw an unarmed man chasing an armed man. Then the armed man shot the unarmed man 4 times. You did not see the unarmed man pose any immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to the armed man. In fact you didn't see the unarmed man even touch the armed man.

You can't legally kill people simply because they intimidate you. You can't legally kill people because they make you flinch. You can't legally kill people because you think they might take some series of actions which could cause harm before they actually engage in it. You can't legally kill people because you are a huge pussy who is afraid of everything that someone could do to them. It's always true that people could do something to you. Does that mean, idiot, that anyone can kill anyone at any time and cite the universe of things that could happen as justification?

KR killed Rosenbaum because he was paranoid and cowardly. Most if not all people who open carry are paranoid and cowardly. The legal standard isn't like "if a paranoid pussy thinks his life is in danger...". The legal standard invokes what a rational person would think. Otherwise, idiot, any person could kill any other person and simply make the claim "I was afraid for my life because they could have done XYZ".

As to your "what if they were Black" nonsense, you would be hard pressed to find an example of a Black person attending a right wing political protest with a gun. You would be hard pressed to find BLM protestors attaching repelling equipment to the capital building and invading it, seemingly with no fear of consequence. Why? Because it is well understood by Black people that some White person would shoot them in those scenarios. Because when Black people go to peacefully protest at the capital there is always a hyper increased police presence which always includes horse mounted police. Did you see any horses on Jan. 6? If a Black civilian shot an unarmed White protestor at a rightwing rally they would be shot. Their dead body would be symbolically lynched, then burned. There would likely be no trial, and if there was no White person would be punished. That's the country we live in, and it's ****.

Nobody argues whether or not Rittenhouse was acting self defense, idiot. The question is whether it his deployment of lethal self defense was legal. If some little kid came up to me and started punching me I am sure I would have the right to defend myself. But I am sure I don't have the right to gun them down on the spot.

Can you read that simple wording, idiot? How many times have you been chased or intimidated? But you are still here. Do you think you could have or should have killed every person that has confronted you or intimidated you just because they might take it further? Actually you probably do. All you conservatives are little Walter Mittys but in your fantasies you're the villains shooting up a public place or gathering of "race traitors". I bet you've long wanted to see some pig faced buffoon like Rittenhouse gun down some protestors. Don't hide behind the law, coward. Say what you really want to say.

Didn't read your walls of text, but Deuces, pro tip: you present yourself as infallible - that is not a great recipe for being liked. Fallibility endears you to people.

I will be that guy! Figure plaintiff lawyers got $2 million and divide that by 40%.

2.5 months in jail for someone exonerated is a done deal. He could have been in jail until the trial ended. The $2 million bail hurdle was way more than what a 17 year old coming from a lower middle class background could expect to come up with. Seems like significant consequences to me but ymmv.

The bail money is returned. Several people helped in posting, not sure how the accounting is handled.

If a bail bondsman will post the full amount. Might have in this case, don’t know but pretty sure a bail bondsman was not used. Pretty sure a bail bondsman would have required more than 10-20%. Rittenhouse case was/is toxic and this was not an everyday type crime like domestic violence. The 10% to 20% is what the bondsman receives aka not returnable, bail bondsman’s profit.

Ricky Schroeder & Mike Lindell Help in posting Rittenhouse Cash Bail

I think the claim that survived was the false statement that Sandmann had blocked the Indian guy. That was reported and had zero basis in fact.

I don't know what Sandmann recovered; the settlement is confidential and I haven't heard anything more than pure speculation about the number.

Siberian:

my view of this case would be exactly what it is now if the facts were the same but KR was Black.

More accurately the claims were regarding WAPO printing Phillips' words, which claimed that he had been blocked. It is very difficult to win a claim when the disputed statement is reporting of someone else's words and essentially impossible if, like in this case, a correction was printed in a timely fashion.

I'm very confused how a white vigilante killing people in the streets and getting acquitted of all charges is taken as proof that America isn't into lynching anymore.

I am both curious and very confused by this post as I did not follow the case at all.

You say this,

"...3 were allowed to proceed after appeal) and the only ones left were more or less impossible to win a case for...."

Which as I read it is you saying WAPO (the defendant) is left in a spot they cannot win. WAPO then wants to settle for the costs they have or will have to sink in to the trial thru,

"...deposition/discovery (saving) WAPO money and saves the defendant (WAPO) having to publicly admit that they can't win at trial..."

.OK i get that WAPO would certainly want to settle based on that. Left with claims they cannot win and having to make a public admission they can't win WAPO would gladly take the out that basically covers costs and get out.


What I don't understand is why you think Sandman would settle for just that? You brought the suit, as Sandman, to win and punish them. Apparently you are winning and have them on the ropes. They cannot win and face public ridicule. And you let them off for 'costs'??

Why bring the case in the first place if all they have to do is offer your legal costs to make you go away?

This type of behaviour by a plaintiff makes no sense to me based on my experience in taking issues to court.

@bolded, No it is not.

There are many things in life I accept the result of but don't like the decision making or procedures used that was accepted to get there.

There is no requirement to 'like' or 'agree' with the 'priors' to accept a result.

We see this type of flawed logic used to say Stacy Abrams like Trump has never accepted her loss. That is false. She absolutely accepted her loss. Complaints about the process and seeking to change the process after does not deny her acceptance.

Saying defendant there was a mistake, I meant to say that the settlement allows the plaintiff (Sandmann) to avoid admitting they had no chance of winning at trial. I'd have thought the fact that it was immediately after saying why WAPO would agree to a small settlement and that the entire rest of the post was saying why I think Sandmann didn't receive much in the settlement might have made it fairly obvious that that was a mistake (Rococo and Howard obviously realised what I meant).