Your snark at the end shows how inevitability you almost always miss the point.

Too many nonwhites for non violent crimes and for durations that make no sense compared to whites can certainly be an issue that needs to be addressed and does not mean that violent offenders cannot be consistently prosecuted.

What you may find is that the system does a better job with the latter if not focused disproportionately on the former.

Well, yeah, of ****ing course not. There aren't two sides to the story with this car murderer guy. Everybody knows he'll be tried and convicted. Where's the controversy? Let's see if you'll accept this simple explanation or continue with the woe-is-me white guy right-wing self-victimization.

Kyle rittenhouse did nothing wrong! Deal with it

If only American society treated white suspects as gently as black suspects, we'd be set! Everybody knows how much privilege those lucky black guys get granted in our justice system!

/harvin

Yes I think they do. Actually I watched Meet The Press on Sunday and they were pretty much saying it as well
Heck MSNBC was still saying he killed BLM protesters

Large businesses hire people specifically for this.

There aren’t two sides to either story. People
Just want there to be. Both are very easy cases.

That's why bringing a gun to this situation is so dumb. His life or anyone else's life or even his property was not in danger beforehand. The decision of who lives and who dies simply just comes down to someone's opinion of the threat of the dude holding the gun. But we are going to disagree on the threat to RH once he put himself in that spot.

It may be "dumb" in your opinion, but it's his God given right as a red blooded American. Deal with it!

Just because you have the right to do something dumb doesn't mean you should use it.

That the president can say what he wants and nobody can force him to say anything shouldn’t be controversial.

Rumors were the former guy needed adult diapers. But could have just been obesity related pants bunching.

Murder charges came down, we are getting close to halftime in the democrat cope charade.

If the Waukesha guy was exonerated because he felt his safety was threatened by the parade-goers and had no choice but to mow them down in self-defense, the bothsides derps might have a point.

But, as usual, they don't.

This will be added to the cope spectrum

Im mixed-race and haven’t voted for a Republican in over three decades.

But I’ll call it the way I see it when a thug out on $1,000 bail and who had already run over a person with a vehicle is allowed back into society to do more damage.

Better luck next time.

I never said it should be a requirement. I said he shouldn't be claiming fraud by the jury on a case he has provided no evidence that fraud occurred.

See, that's where you're misunderstanding me.

If there was a legal loophole, then it's legal and there is no fraud. If you want to discuss the legal loophole and how to close it, then that's obviously totally fine.

You know, like Trump claiming fraud in the 2020 election with zero evidence that fraud occurred. He shouldn't have done that either.

A president saying he's angry about the outcome of the trial and suggesting the jury intentionally let a murderer go without providing evidence is not wise nor productive.

If he had said, "They voted not-guilty because of <insert legal loophole> and I'm going to work to change those laws" then it's totally fine to comment in that way.


Key word: legal. Talking about fixing a legal issue so it's more fair is fine. That is not what Biden did. He implied they should have voted guilty even though he hasn't seen any of the evidence and gave no reasons why he suspects fraud - just pandering.


Speaking out on injustices built into the system, fine; speaking about injustice based on feels, not fine.

Sounds like you're saying the legal injustice built into the system is that jurors can intentionally let a guilty person go due to any reason they want, court evidence be damned. That's true and that's not good, but if you think this is what happened here, then you're claiming straight-up fraud by the jury and not citing legal loopholes.


That's not what I said nor do I disagree about talking about rules or laws and changing them to be more fair.

Again, that's not what Biden did.

I'm following just fine.

You're claiming that the jury disregarded the evidence and let a guilty person go free, and you think it's fine, even commendable, that a president claims the same thing.

Without specific evidence that this occurred, then you're looking for politics to influence jurors and not evidence brought forth in the trial.

It was Adobe, actually. There is the original video you can watch, and his pants are fine. Lots of things to hammer Trump on; you don't need edited media for that.

Lets just back up as maybe I missed some more of Biden's comments and thus we talking past one another.

These are the quotes I am aware of...

are these his post verdict comments you are referring to or is there something else?

I would ask you to quote the "fraud" comment if that is the case but clearly there is not one.

Again he is allowed to be disappointed and not agree but he clearly accepts the jury verdict and tells everyone they should.


Anyway over to you.

You legit just posted quotes by Biden saying he didn't watch the trial and that he's angry over the verdict. If he didn't watch any of the trial (i.e., evidence presented to jurors by both sides), then how can he have any strong feelings about the verdict, regardless of which way they decided? That's like Trump-level reckless.

I am really not able to follow you.

Are you saying being angry at an outcome equals calling it a fraud and not accepting it?

So I got the quotes right and you think Biden, who would be briefed on this has no right to his own opinion since he did not watch it?

Again that is not how life works. Biden can hold a view that there is something wrong in a system that allows this, even if it is legal and the decision by the jury must be abided. But he can be angry as a result about what he thinks this says about American society. HE HAS EVERY RIGHT to have his own emotions and you don't get to tell him what he must feel.

Nah there were unedited pictures also. He’s obese and his pants can bunch up in unflattering areas. Obviously doesn’t confirm diapers but Twitter trolls ran with it.

Nope, still not getting it. I don’t know if the letter of the law was followed or not. A miscarriage of Justice occurred because Rittenhouse’s reckless behavior resulted in deaths and should be illegal. In most sane countries it obviously would be.

I didn't say he doesn't have the right to be an idiot. Trump had that right, too, and sure as shiit exercised it non-stop.

Can we just address the elephant in the room? He's angry because he thinks a white guy got white privilege in a murder case where two people "supporting" black lives got killed.

Yeah, I saw those, too. They're from a speech he gave at CPAC. His pants are normal in the video from where the pictures were captured. You got duped by chopped photos.

It's not a miscarriage of justice just because you think it should be illegal; it's a miscarriage of justice if it's illegal and the jury votes based on feels and not facts.