• New Home.

    Hey all, just a little update.

    We have moved servers and as a result, we are now under a new URL and a new name, we are now Irishpolitics.net. Please change your bookmarks and update how you get to this site.

    Our new URL is

    www.irishpolitics.net

    The old URL will become obsolete over the coming week.

    We will also be upgrading the site software to the latest version but this will be done over the coming weeks, once everyone is comfortable with the new URL.

    Sorry for any inconvenience.

    Colm
  • Important Information regarding posting about Covid 19 Click Here

POTUS Joe Biden.

Cruimh

Rhubarb fetishist and proud of it!
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Nov 28, 2018
18,714
12,401
Under the blue skies
www.xxx-rhubarb.com
[MOD] - sometimes a moderator will unapprove a post so that the moderator team can decide whether to leave it, edit it, ask the poster to edit it or delete it.
And for the first few posts a newly joined member will be pre-moderated - to avoid spamming or troublemaking. If the Posts are unacceptable then they will not appear on the site. [/MOD]
 

Jaysus

Member
Sep 6, 2021
370
312
Wow. That's all I'll say or I'll be banned.
People seem to have a very hard time differentiating between decisions made that follow the law, and decisions they don’t like.
As I stated above, I’ve a problem with Rittenhouse’s trial, but the only ones who sailed a little too close to the boundaries of the law are the prosecution team, and the NBC journo that tried following the jury to their hotel.
 

cumulonimbus

Member
Mar 16, 2019
265
129
The verdict comes across as deeply ironic. The police shoot dead a man who's death is then protested with Rittenhouse consequently shooting dead two of those protesters. It's seems to be on the side of the law all you have to do is carry out murder with a gun and any kind of complaint about that in itself should be considered deeply subversive dangerous and of course illegal. It's like stepping through the looking glass where everything is back to front inside out etc.
 

Bonkers

Member
Feb 15, 2019
4,965
4,701
People seem to have a very hard time differentiating between decisions made that follow the law, and decisions they don’t like.
As I stated above, I’ve a problem with Rittenhouse’s trial, but the only ones who sailed a little too close to the boundaries of the law are the prosecution team, and the NBC journo that tried following the jury to their hotel.
The judge wouldn’t allow the dead to be called victims FFS. The only ones celebrating this are the far right as it gives them the licence to murder more people.
 

hollandia

Literally knows shit
Staff member
Moderator
Member
The judge wouldn’t allow the dead to be called victims FFS. The only ones celebrating this are the far right as it gives them the licence to murder more people.
It's unpleasant and unfair, but legally speaking they aren't victims as far as the court is concerned (as that implies the defendant's guilt) until a conviction has been laid down.
The judge is technically correct. Court rooms have to be free of emotion. That said, the judge is extremely suspect.
 

T. Leaf

Member
Nov 28, 2018
2,367
1,854
He followed the law.
Perhaps you think the law is bias?
No. The law can be interpreted in different ways. The judge was biased. In no way for me was there a need for deadly force in repelling Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse shot a man who had thrown a plastic bag at him and was now rushing towards armed with nothing except his hands. That was manslaughter.

I hope you will now answer one of my questions, just for clarity’s sake: you say that you” have a massive problem with the verdict.” What problem do you have with it?
 

T. Leaf

Member
Nov 28, 2018
2,367
1,854
It's unpleasant and unfair, but legally speaking they aren't victims as far as the court is concerned (as that implies the defendant's guilt) until a conviction has been laid down.
The judge is technically correct. Court rooms have to be free of emotion. That said, the judge is extremely suspect.
I listened to a fair amount of discussion about the case on CNN. A former judge said that she had never heard any judge make that stipulation before. Why was it necessary for this judge to make it?
 

Jaysus

Member
Sep 6, 2021
370
312
No. The law can be interpreted in different ways. The judge was biased. In no way for me was there a need for deadly force in repelling Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse shot a man who had thrown a plastic bag at him and was now rushing towards armed with nothing except his hands. That was manslaughter.

I hope you will now answer one of my questions, just for clarity’s sake: you say that you” have a massive problem with the verdict.” What problem do you have with it?
The problem I have with the verdict lies squarely at the feet of the prosecution’s case. They took what should’ve been a slam dunk conviction and screwed it up so badly that the jury had no choice but to return a Not Guilty verdict. A unanimous one at that. Double jeopardy means no retrial. The prosecution were so inept that they couldn’t even manage to hang the jury. Fucking unanimous Not Guilty on all counts. Ridiculous.
 

Jaysus

Member
Sep 6, 2021
370
312
It's unpleasant and unfair, but legally speaking they aren't victims as far as the court is concerned (as that implies the defendant's guilt) until a conviction has been laid down.
The judge is technically correct. Court rooms have to be free of emotion. That said, the judge is extremely suspect.
The law is an arse and whatnot, but it is the law.
 

T. Leaf

Member
Nov 28, 2018
2,367
1,854
The problem I have with the verdict lies squarely at the feet of the prosecution’s case. They took what should’ve been a slam dunk conviction and screwed it up so badly that the jury had no choice but to return a Not Guilty verdict. A unanimous one at that. Double jeopardy means no retrial. The prosecution were so inept that they couldn’t even manage to hang the jury. Fucking unanimous Not Guilty on all counts. Ridiculous.
Thanks for the clarity. Fair play to you.
 
May 11, 2021
11
7
His ground rules included not allowing the prosecution to refer to the people killed and wounded as victims. He was absolutely wrong there. A victim is someone who suffers through the actions of others. Even if you are a judge, saying black is white doesn't make it so.
These were not victims, they were intent on causing trouble and chased the frightened teenager who was fleeing from the scene. The first thug (Rosenbaum) was armed with a chain who charged at the boy for no reason. During the chase he (Rittenhouse) was attacked with a baseball bat and kicked in the head. The final assailant was shot in the arm just before he pulled the trigger, otherwise Rittenhouse would be a goner.

These were nasty people as their criminal records indicate. It's a disgrace that the boy was brought before a court of law and had to endured so much for the mere fact of defending himself. Let's hope all goes well for him in the future.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sep 15, 2021
109
78
The judge wouldn’t allow the dead to be called victims FFS. The only ones celebrating this are the far right as it gives them the licence to murder more people.
He did more than that. He harangued the prosecution, dismissed video evidence on ridiculous grounds, was openly sympathetic with the defendant, made racist remarks about Asians and had Trump's theme song as his ringtone! Seriously, anyone who thinks this verdict was 'justice' is deluded. The US justice system has shown itself to favour armed racist vigilantes. If the defendant were black he wouldn't have even made it to trial as the cops would have shot him. The ACTUAL point of this trial was not to try Rittenhouse. It was actually to put the BLM movement on trial and to legitimise violence against protestors against racist violence. It succeded. The US is no longer a functioning democracy (if it ever was when it came to Racial equality).
 
Sep 15, 2021
109
78
I listened to a fair amount of discussion about the case on CNN. A former judge said that she had never heard any judge make that stipulation before. Why was it necessary for this judge to make it?
He was a racist right winger who openly sided with the defence.
 
Sep 15, 2021
109
78
The verdict comes across as deeply ironic. The police shoot dead a man who's death is then protested with Rittenhouse consequently shooting dead two of those protesters. It's seems to be on the side of the law all you have to do is carry out murder with a gun and any kind of complaint about that in itself should be considered deeply subversive dangerous and of course illegal. It's like stepping through the looking glass where everything is back to front inside out etc.
All you have to do to be on the side of the law in the US is be a racist who murders non-racists.
 
Nov 27, 2018
4,975
6,744
The law is an arse and whatnot, but it is the law.
And this is why "the rule of law" is a contentious issue. Everyone is "for' the concept of a dispassionate 'rule of law', and everyone is against bringing exceptionalism and subjectivity into "the rule of law". Until verdicts are given that those people strongly disagree with.

When a verdict is legally sound but at the same time repugnant, is the repugnance more important? It can't be.
 
Last edited:

Jaysus

Member
Sep 6, 2021
370
312
And this is why "the rule of law" is a contentious issue. Everyone if "for' the concept of a dispassionate 'rule of law', and everyone is against bringing exceptionalism and subjectivity into "the rule of law". Until verdicts are given that those people strongly disagree with.

When a verdict is legally sound but at the same time repugnant, is the repugnance more important? It can't be.
Writ large with Bonkers’ and Snorlax’s statements above. They’re both so upset with the verdict that they can’t see that others on the thread who feel the same way about the matter aren’t actually against them, but… as is often the case, zealots can be blinded by their faith, and set all logic aside.
 
Nov 27, 2018
4,975
6,744
Writ large with Bonkers’ and Snorlax’s statements above. They’re both so upset with the verdict that they can’t see that others on the thread who feel the same way about the matter aren’t actually against them, but… as is often the case, zealots can be blinded by their faith, and set all logic aside.
Rittenhouse got away with it, and that's an awful result. I don't think anyone on the thread is saying otherwise.

But the big question is "who or what is at fault to cause that awful result?"

If the law itself is at fault, then a reform is needed. But that's a very serious undertaking. And, unless a hell of a lot of care is taken in doing so, the consequences in many future case may be as awful, if even not more awful. Declaring the law itself is at fault firstly needs an awful lot of evidence to back it up, and secondly leads to the question :how can we make the law better without inadvertently making it a lot worse?"

Declaring the judge was at fault is not as serious as saying the law itself was, but this also needs a hell of a lot of evidence to back it up. Ultimately, this is essentially a peer review situation and, as it has been seen in Poland, any disciplinary body that reviews a judge's performance that is influenced in any way by political or public opinion is itself contradictory to the basis of "the rule of law".

Declaring the jury were at fault is nonsense if there is no credible evidence that the jury were being coerced in one form or another.

Anger is understandable, but anger can't be a justification for throwing the rule of law in the bin for exceptional cases that don't suit us.
 

Jaysus

Member
Sep 6, 2021
370
312
Rittenhouse got away with it, and that's an awful result. I don't think anyone on the thread is saying otherwise.

But the big question is "who or what is at fault to cause that awful result?"

If the law itself is at fault, then a reform is needed. But that's a very serious undertaking. And, unless a hell of a lot of care is taken in doing so, the consequences in many future case may be as awful, if even not more awful. Declaring the law itself is at fault firstly needs an awful lot of evidence to back it up, and secondly leads to the question :how can we make the law better without inadvertently making it a lot worse?"

Declaring the judge was at fault is not as serious as saying the law itself was, but this also needs a hell of a lot of evidence to back it up. Ultimately, this is essentially a peer review situation and, as it has been seen in Poland, any disciplinary body that reviews a judge's performance that is influenced in any way by political or public opinion is itself contradictory to the basis of "the rule of law".

Declaring the jury were at fault is nonsense if there is no credible evidence that the jury were being coerced in one form or another.

Anger is understandable, but anger can't be a justification for throwing the rule of law in the bin for exceptional cases that don't suit us.
The prosecution is at fault. That’s abundantly clear.
 
Nov 27, 2018
4,975
6,744
The prosecution is at fault. That’s abundantly clear.
Yes. I don't think that is, or should be, in question. The feeling I'm getting in the posts, apart from (quite understandable) horror and anger at Rittenhouse walking free, is if it was only the prosecution that was at fault, or was the fault wider than just the prosecution.

What I was trying to showing my earlier post is that it's a can of worms to place blame wider, and it's pointless to do so lightly and without a substantial amount of very solid evidence. Otherwise, rule of law goes out of the window as the justice system becomes a political football.
 

Jaysus

Member
Sep 6, 2021
370
312
Yes. I don't think that is, or should be, in question. The feeling I'm getting in the posts, apart from (quite understandable) horror and anger at Rittenhouse walking free, is if it was only the prosecution that was at fault, or was the fault wider than just the prosecution.

What I was trying to showing my earlier post is that it's a can of worms to place blame wider, and it's pointless to do so lightly and without a substantial amount of very solid evidence. Otherwise, rule of law goes out of the window as the justice system becomes a political football.
Nah, it’s like they went out of their way to piss off the judge, the jury, and to flout the law. It’s like they deliberately sabotaged their own case. I said as much on the 11th:


It’s like the prosecution’s self sabotaging in that case.
 
Sep 15, 2021
109
78
Writ large with Bonkers’ and Snorlax’s statements above. They’re both so upset with the verdict that they can’t see that others on the thread who feel the same way about the matter aren’t actually against them, but… as is often the case, zealots can be blinded by their faith, and set all logic aside.
I'm not a zealot. The law and verdict in this case openly sided with a racist murderer. Using your fatuous statement, Nelson Mandela deserved to be locked up by the SA state, the Tianamen Square protestors deserved to be shot, escaped slaves in pre civil war US deserved to be returned to their owners., Soviet Dissidents deserved to go to the Gulag etc. etc.

I bet everyone pontificating on this thread about the "Law is the law, so suck it up" is a priveliged white dude.
 
Last edited:
Sep 15, 2021
109
78
Yes. I don't think that is, or should be, in question. The feeling I'm getting in the posts, apart from (quite understandable) horror and anger at Rittenhouse walking free, is if it was only the prosecution that was at fault, or was the fault wider than just the prosecution.

What I was trying to showing my earlier post is that it's a can of worms to place blame wider, and it's pointless to do so lightly and without a substantial amount of very solid evidence. Otherwise, rule of law goes out of the window as the justice system becomes a political football.
That's exactly what has ALREADY happened in the US, as has been made abundantly clear by this trial.

Anyway, back on topic: it will be interesting to see how Biden deals with this. He is facing a society that's not just politically divided, but one in which one side (right wing republicans) are prepared to arm themselves and shoot people from the other side (progressives, blacks, minorities, protestors people who wear masks, etc.) not to mention the massive gerrymandering that the republicans are currently engaged in - all apparently with the full support of the Law. What a totally f'ed up county.
 
Last edited:

Jaysus

Member
Sep 6, 2021
370
312
That's exactly what has ALREADY happened in the US, as has been made abundantly clear by this trial.

Anyway, back on topic: it will be interesting to see how Biden deals with this. He is facing a society that's not just politically divided, but one in which one side (right wing republicans) are prepared to arm themselves and shoot people from the other side (progressives, blacks, minorities, protestors people who wear masks, etc.) not to mention the massive gerrymandering that the republicans are currently engaged in - all apparently with the full support of the Law. What a totally f'ed up county.
It’s done and dusted as far as Biden is concerned. Nothing to do with him, as can be seen by the reaction to his VP’s statement on the matter.
 

T. Leaf

Member
Nov 28, 2018
2,367
1,854
That's exactly what has ALREADY happened in the US, as has been made abundantly clear by this trial.

Anyway, back on topic: it will be interesting to see how Biden deals with this. He is facing a society that's not just politically divided, but one in which one side (right wing republicans) are prepared to arm themselves and shoot people from the other side (progressives, blacks, minorities, protestors people who wear masks, etc.) not to mention the massive gerrymandering that the republicans are currently engaged in - all apparently with the full support of the Law. What a totally f'ed up county.
I think Biden needs to get on with police reform. The police had a large part to play in the Rittenhouse case, where, according to reports, the police welcomed the "militants" gun-carrying private citizens and even gave them water. The police should have told them to withdraw, as their presence there was provocative and likely to escalate the situation. (Yes, I know people there are allowed to carry guns openly, but the police have the authority to disperse crowds if they think they are likely to cause trouble.) Unfortunately, the opposite happened.
 
Sep 15, 2021
109
78
It’s done and dusted as far as Biden is concerned. Nothing to do with him, as can be seen by the reaction to his VP’s statement on the matter.
Actually, that's not true. Biden issued a statement that he was "angry and concerned" about the verdict, along with many Americans. However, he abides by the jury decision. Interestingly, Donald Trump also stated that he believed, like yourself, thet the whole trial was an example of 'prosecutorial misconduct'. So there you go, yourself and the Orange Baboon are on the same page on this one.

Biden may decide to ignore the fallout from the trial, but it's not going to go away.

Hero or vigilante? Rittenhouse verdict reignites polarized U.S. gun debate | Reuters
 
Last edited:

Jaysus

Member
Sep 6, 2021
370
312
Actually, that's not true. Biden issued a statement that he was "angry and concerned" about the verdict, along with many Americans. However, he abides by the jury decision. Interestingly, Donald Trump also stated that he believed, like yourself, thet the whole trial was an example of 'prosecutorial misconduct'. So there you go, yourself and the Orange Baboon are on the same page on this one.

Biden may decide to ignore the fallout from the trial, but it's not going to go away.

Hero or vigilante? Rittenhouse verdict reignites polarized U.S. gun debate | Reuters
Biden has done the Punch Us Pilot and washed his hands. I’m happy that you see that.

The whole orange baboon thing is tiresome and unhelpful and designed to provoke a reaction. Straight out of the Antifa playbook. It’s why people like you who blindly support Antifa and their tactics are looked upon as zealots.
 

Jaysus

Member
Sep 6, 2021
370
312
I think Biden needs to get on with police reform. The police had a large part to play in the Rittenhouse case, where, according to reports, the police welcomed the "militants" gun-carrying private citizens and even gave them water. The police should have told them to withdraw, as their presence there was provocative and likely to escalate the situation. (Yes, I know people there are allowed to carry guns openly, but the police have the authority to disperse crowds if they think they are likely to cause trouble.) Unfortunately, the opposite happened.
The police were terrified. Kenosha had become a lawless jurisdiction with businesses being burned to the ground by the rent a crowd. Of course they welcomed any support they could get.
 
Sep 15, 2021
109
78
Biden has done the Punch Us Pilot and washed his hands. I’m happy that you see that.

The whole orange baboon thing is tiresome and unhelpful and designed to provoke a reaction. Straight out of the Antifa playbook. It’s why people like you who blindly support Antifa and their tactics are looked upon as zealots.
If those who support Trump see me as a zealot, I'm very happy about that. It means I still have some morals and intelligence.
 
Sep 15, 2021
109
78
The police were terrified. Kenosha had become a lawless jurisdiction with businesses being burned to the ground by the rent a crowd. Of course they welcomed any support they could get.
Ah, I see you are pro vigilanteism and proto fascism: keep them BLM protestors in their place. No wonder you think this 'verdict' is legit.
 
Sep 15, 2021
109
78
Yeah, and here are their counterparts:


The difference between you and I is that you support one of these groups, while I support neither.
Ok, we're clear on this finally: you're a proto fascist. By your own admission. Maybe those more normal posters who agree with your assertion that "US law is the law so suck it up" should think about where this position leads.
 
Top Bottom