Curiously, Biden praises a guilty verdict ...
"At least now there is some justice."
"A giant step forward in the march toward justice in America".
Biden is entitled to have an opinion on the case, just as you are.
He is the POTUS, he is not the judge, the jury, or in any other way related to the case.
If you don't like his opinion, hard luck. i don't suppose he cares much about yours.
WTF? I can't get my breath.
Then calm down, take it easy. If you're going to get in such a tizzy, you'll make it difficult for yourself.
Luckily there's no-one kneeling on your neck.
This implies that a 'not guilty' verdict in a fair trial of his peers would not have been "justice" and would have been wrong, and therefore the copper must have been guilty right from the start even before the trial began.
You've also got yourself all flummoxed.
A not guilty verdict of a guilty person would indeed be unfair. Similarly, guilty verdict of a not guilty person would be also unfair.
If a person is guilty, they are guilty at the moment of committing the crime. They don't become guilty at some point afterwards.
The whole point of the trial is to determine if they were guilty, at the moment of committing the crime.
Clearly the jury thought that the copper was guilty at the moment of committing the crime, therefore, it is considered the correct verdict even if you disagree.
Or is Biden saying that his own system of justice is not in fact fair and err just?
Biden doesn't have his own system of justice.
So there is only one type of 'justice' and that is the justice of the mob.
Just like the leftie justice of the Twitter and FB mob then, if they say you are guilty, then you are guilty.
Don't be petulant. If the people on twitter or FB decide you are guilty, nothing happens. If the court decide you are guilty, you are punished. That's how the system works.
The issue is why would the President of that land proclaim that it was the "right" decision, implying that if the jury went the other way, in accordance with the law of the land, then that would be the wrong decision?
It's his opinion. He's entitled to his opinion.
It would be far more worrying if he disagreed publicly with the courts.
Now which leader of the government would oppose a court's decision, and publicly berate the the court?