Biden on Rittenhouse verdict: 'The jury has spoken'

[riversedge]

Source: THE HILL




By Alex Gangitano - 11/19/21 02:56 PM EST


President Biden on Friday said he stands by the jury’s decision to acquit Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who fatally shot two protesters in Kenosha, Wis., and wounded a third.

“Well look, I stand by what the jury has concluded. The jury system works and we have to abide by it,” the president said when asked about the decision by reporters at the White House.

He said he had just heard about the verdict and didn’t watch the trial. He declined to directly comment on whether he stands by a tweet he sent as a presidential candidate that suggested Rittenhouse was a white supremacist.

In a statement released later on Friday, Biden said he, like "many Americans," feels “angry and concerned” about the verdict, but urged Americans to express their views on the outcome “peacefully.”

"We must acknowledge that the jury has spoken,” he said.
................................................

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/582394-biden-on-rittenhouse-verdict-the-jury-system-works

---

Biden is wise not to say too much. Yet, he does acknowledge how many are feeling about the verdict. Glad he said to express our feelings peacefully.

--also glad Biden is our POTUS during this stressful time.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. From President Biden

Link to tweet

[BlueMTexpat]

36. Thanks for posting this!

It gives more perspective!

[StopTheRight2024]

2. The Law?

So, now you can get shot in the chest for trying to stop a mass shooter? WTH????

It's open season on good samaritans!! Ridiculous!

[regnaD kciN]

5. I won't say what I think about Biden's reaction...

…because it would probably get me banned from DU.

I’ll only say that it would be nice if, while we’re under attack by fascism, someone would take our side, and not just tell us to be “peaceful.”

[TwilightZone]

6. Would you prefer that he further jack people up?

Like Trump would do?

His response was measured, as it *must* be in cases like this.

[Jose Garcia]

34. That's exactly what some people want

There's quite a market for a liberal version of Trump.

[stopdiggin]

52. well put

there is indeed a great appetite for, "We need to fight fire with ..."

Incredibly glad Joe is not that person.

[ShazzieB]

60. I agree about Joe!

Why anyone would want a potus to rile people up and encourage them to respond to something like this any other way than peaceably is beyond me. That would be very irresponsible, and if there's one thing Joe's NOT, it's irresponsible.

[Elessar Zappa]

7. What's he supposed to say?

He’s the president of the United States, not a pundit or opinion columnist. It’s his job to promote a peaceful response.

[BradAllison]

15. The right will still claim he tried to "influence the jury"

It's pointless. It's over.

[yardwork]

16. Did you read his statement? I think it's very good.

That's about as far as a president can reasonably go.

[Kaleva]

25. +1

[sarisataka]

18. Would you have preferred

If he said- This is bullshit, burn the country to the ground

[Demsrule86]

31. I an not happy with the verdict...but the jury has decided and it is over. Biden is right. We

need to begin working for the midterms and do things that are possible.

[Demsrule86]

32. What you want the president to advocate violence?

[orangecrush]

21. Welcome to DU

Enjoy your stay.

[myohmy2]

38. that's...

...what I don't understand...

...if rittenhouse was armed walking and protecting the streets defending himself and community from rioters why weren't the victims he shot and killed walking and protecting the streets defending themselves and community from armed right-wing terrorists and vigilantes?

...double-standard...

[Mosby]

40. One of the "victims" pointed a gun at him.

And got shot.

[myohmy2]

41. wouldn't...

...you point your gun in self-defense as you approached an armed vigilante or terrorist?

...I think I would...

[Dr. Strange]

46. But...

as you approached an armed vigilante or terrorist

why in the hell would you approach an armed vigilante or terrorist?

In this case, Kyle is walking to the police. Let him fucking turn himself in. This is the ideal situation. Why would you try to stop him? Get the fuck away.

[myohmy2]

56. "why in the hell would you approach an armed vigilante or terrorist?"

...to protect the community and streets from the dangers of right-wing vigilantes and terrorists...

...why would any patriotic person approach a terrorist or vigilante who was armed and dangerous?

...can we be sure he was walking to the police to turn himself in?

...I don't know...

[Dr. Strange]

59. How does that protect the community?

If he was just blindly firing into the crowd, then maybe attacking would make sense.

But he's walking away, towards the cops. This seems like the ideal situation. Let him turn himself in.

Trying to prevent someone from surrendering to the police seems massively irresponsible, if not downright dangerous. This could (and in this case, did) result in people getting hurt or killed.

...can we be sure he was walking to the police to turn himself in?

...I don't know...

Of course we know--we have the benefit of hindsight. If people would have let him turn himself in, we would have had two fewer victims.

[myohmy2]

61. hard to say...

...what was going through the minds and the intent of the victims at the time...

...equally hard to know what was going through the mind and the intent of rittenhouse...

...all I know is two people are dead, one injured and who was held accountable?

...I know, it was the victims fault...

[Galraedia]

65. I'm sorry but if I saw someone running away after shooting someone my first thought wouldn't be

that he's going to turn himself in to the police. It's either that he's running away because he just killed someone or he's trying to put some distance between himself so that he can open fire on someone else.

[Galraedia]

66. Wait, you're telling me that guns don't prevent you from being shot?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. I am very glad he's our President too, especially today.

Saying too much could be the match to the flame.

[JohnnyRingo]

14. Don't worry, the previous guy has a whole book of matches.

Ominously silent so far, but we know the bile is right in his throat.

[Cryptoad]

4. Whose,,,,,,,

going down to Mar-Lar-go with kyle to pic up his Medal of Freedom?

[Evolve Dammit]

8. It's coming. The new poster child for gun rights and killing protestors. Key to fascist movement.

Gotta have a "patriot" to rally around. Gaetz and Gosar are already fighting over him for Congressional aide. Kyle is all set.

[Polybius]

9. Amazing statement

Thank you, Mr. President.

[COL Mustard]

10. And He's Right. The Jury Heard The Evidence And Decided.

I don't agree with it, and I certainly don't like the verdict, but I will respect the decision of the jury and not riot.

I do think the little shit got away with murder, though. He clearly had gone looking for trouble, and guess what...he found it. Now I'd be curious to know if the DoJ will bring him up on Federal Civil Rights charges.

[orangecrush]

20. +1

[cstanleytech]

24. Still, I have to wonder if we might have seen a different verdict had the judge not made the number

of absurd decisions that he did which crippled the prosecution in presenting their case.

[VarryOn]

26. As long as it took, it would seem they were thoughtful and took it seriously. Nt

[DownriverDem]

11. He's right

Too many folks are blaming a lot of folks, but never say the jury.

[madville]

12. The jury had to make a decision based on WI laws

And I think they made the correct decision under the existing laws. That’s not to say that laws can’t be changed, but they are constrained by the laws at the time of the event. This is exactly how the system is supposed to work.

[jeffreyi]

27. Agree.

And I am grateful to not be one of those jurors. And the takeaway? Rittenhouse actions were LAWFUL. Says something about the state laws. I don't think the behavior would fly here in "commie" California.

[madville]

28. I have lived in Florida and California most of my life

You are subject to the laws in the jurisdiction you are in. There are strange things in every state’s gun laws for sure, some going back many decades because a unique situation never came up that showed the potential flaw.

[JohnnyRingo]

13. I hate to agree with the president on this, but...

I have a lot of faith in juries and can accept this ruling as I did the verdicts of OJ and Derek Chauvin. I might feel differently based on testimony and articles I've read, but like every one else, I only caught relative bits and pieces.

I wasn't subject to the emotions and facts as jury members who sat through every word during weeks of sworn testimony. I wasn't swayed by strategies put forth by the prosecution or defense.

As an old and wise local attorney told me once: "You win some, and you lose some".

[WheelWalker]

33. As an old and wise judge told me once: "It's a crap shoot"

[WhiskeyGrinder]

17. "The jury system works." For whom? For what?

[orangecrush]

19. He said exactly what he should say.

He is NOT Trump.

[paleotn]

22. Ok. Does this mean....

a progressive can take a gun to the protest and shoot conservo-jackasses if "threatened"? Asking for a friend.

[milestogo]

23. Well that's certainly non-commital.

[stopdiggin]

29. you would have preferred a smack-down

of the jury, and a little bit of smack talk on our system of justice? By the President of the United States?

---- ----

(Understand perfectly that emotions are running high ... Lot of people are beside themselves. But, that's not what the country needs from our president.)

[milestogo]

39. This verdict exposes systemic racism and legal permission of vigilantism.

The system works for those who set the agenda.

It deserves reform, not celebration.

[stopdiggin]

47. I agree 100%

And plenty of people are right up front condemning this verdict - and pointing out, just as you do, that the system has produced not justice, but an obvious miscarriage of that ideal. But those voices do not, and should not, include the POTUS (at least at this time). The president struck exactly the right tone as the leader of the country. (And in such sharp, and welcome, contrast to the toxicity of the previous holder. Correct?)

The laws are obviously in need of reform. At the same time, you either believe in the rule of law - or you belong to the gang that's trying to tear it all down. Pretty much that simple.

----- -----

[milestogo]

49. Exactly how bad does the miscarriage of justice have to be before POTUS can call it like it is?

[stopdiggin]

50. I don't believe he should.

There are other people to do that. On the other hand - if the DOJ starts showing a renewed interest in 'militia' type groups and activities (which they already are) ... Or if any kind of meaningful 2A legislation reaches his desk - watch him sign with alacrity - and a flourish!

I'll repeat - did you think this was a place that called for a big smack-down by the POTUS?

[RevBrotherThomas]

30. Sorry...

This is crap.

[jcmaine72]

35. The President was right the first time..

Shittenlouse is a white supremacist.

Still, it's his job to be diplomatic and tactful, even when referring to a shit verdict benefiting a shit person.

[Magoo48]

68. Disagree. Good leadership calls it like they see it.

If his response was truly the way he feels, ok. If he’s being Presidentially PC, then it’s bullshit.

[myohmy2]

37. Joe said...

...what he had to say...

...but I can't help but wonder what the outcome would have been if the politics and situation were reversed and rittenhouse wasn't a nice looking white boy...

...and what would have been politically said by trump and politically accepted if he were still president...

...double standard...

[ancianita]

42. He is criticized by others of our party, however.

[Demsrule86]

43. Well they shouldn't. If we want to beat the Republicans in the coming elecions, we need top hang

together or we may all hang separately. We already have the GOP and the media beating up Biden/ Harris on a daily basis...we should remain supportive. I think Joe was correct.

[ancianita]

44. Agree. But that criticism comes from black voters, who hang with Dems until juries seem to fail.

I want to back him 100%, and I want him to fight like hell for the For The People Act, or all the infrastructure money will end up as minority take-back if they ever win a general election through electoral vote gerrymandering.

I am not happy. I just hope the 90 million who didn't vote last time get off their duffs for the sake of the nation's children.

[Polybius]

51. Not this black voter

I still support Biden and respect the jury decision. With what they had to work with, it was expected.

[hadEnuf]

45. Hopefully Biden will be saying "the jury has spoken" when the convictions start coming in

for the Trump coup masterminds or even Trump himself.

Biden's statement on Rottenhouse establishes his commitment to law and order. Something Trump fascists hate.

[stopdiggin]

48. great point! -(nt)-

[hadEnuf]

54. We'll see if I'm right about the coup plotters and Trump though.

[wryter2000]

58. I don't see why he wouldn't say the same for them

I guess he could preface it with "It's a sad day when a former President is found guilty of a crime," and then "but the jury has spoken, and we have to abide by their decision." I can easily picture him saying that.

[hadEnuf]

64. Biden keeping his cool over the Rottenhouse verdict reaffirms his stable additute toward the law,

even though we (and most likely him as well) know the verdict is a complete abomination of justice.

If there are charges and then convictions of Trump & the coup cabal, the first thing the GOP will do is screech political persecution and abuse of power. But by again establishing the Democrat's adherence to the law beforehand, the GOP's rantings will look like the phony and lying propaganda it really is.

I badly want Republican red meat on a platter too, but it appears Biden is being wise in his approach.

[keithbvadu2]

53. ...those out to destroy it used the laws and democracy to destroy it.

https://democraticunderground.com/100216071696

Quick history lesson for those who don't understand what is happening now

But what also doomed the WM was the fact that those out to destroy it used the laws and democracy to destroy it.

[jeffreyi]

55. Crappy, yes.

But Rittenhouse actions/behavior are legal in the state of Wisconsin. The crappy laws are not the jury's fault.

[wryter2000]

57. I do wish there was more that he could have said

He couldn't say anything to indicate we don't have to abide by what the jury decided, but the AA people I saw on MSNBC yesterday were very rightly angry and hurt. I think sometimes we don't realize the amount of hurt racism like this causes. I know I didn't until I saw that AA capitol policeman cry after being called an N.

He should have been able to address the anger better, and a statement about the nature of our society's inequities would have been of more comfort to the very people who uplifted his campaign in SC, with the endorsement of Jim Clyburn.

This is not a matter of we need the AA vote to win, even though that's true. The AA community is always there when we ask them to step up and fix our messes. We need to be in solidarity with them and indicate we share their pain (even on a limited level) when things like this happen.

It would have been tremendously difficult to write an acceptable statement like that, but surely, he had someone gifted enough to do it.

[Socal31]

63. I was told by the majority of a black family tonight at the dinner table....

...that it is insulting to suggest they should be emotionally invested in a case that is all white criminals.

I turned a shade of red that is usually reserved for a Bordeaux. Wanted to

[wryter2000]

67. Black people don't always agree with each other. We know that

However, the commentators on MSNBC felt differently.

[Shoonra]

62. The jury has spoken ....

..... And they said they don't want riots in their hometown and will protect anyone who severely discourages rioters.