Smollett Charged With Crime

[Aldebaran]

The answer may be simple. The dude was arrogant enough to think he could get away with it.

That's true, but who would have believed it? Black guys--in Chicago--when it's 10 below zero outside late at night--saying "This is MAGA country" (Chicago isn't even a MAGA city, and IL is hardly a MAGA state, and the majority of black people aren't Trump supporters, let alone extremist ones). If this guy is really a professional actor, one would think he would have been able to come up with something more believable. I'm actually starting to wonder if this was a set-up that was actually designed to fail.

 

[Sistrin]

Where are you getting those figures from?

Someone said it during the Kavanaugh hearings.

 

[bhsmte]

That's true, but who would have believed it? Black guys--in Chicago--when it's 10 below zero outside late at night--saying "This is MAGA country" (Chicago isn't even a MAGA city, and IL is hardly a MAGA state, and the majority of black people aren't Trump supporters, let alone extremist ones). If this guy is really a professional actor, one would think he would have been able to come up with something more believable. I'm actually starting to wonder if this was a set-up that was actually designed to fail.

Narcissists dont think rationally.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Someone said it during the Kavanaugh hearings.

I tried to look into it...couldn't find anything to verify it.

Seems like it would be more accurate to say "95% of rape claims...we don't know anything about".

 

[Ana the Ist]

So, 1.....2....

3...4...

I object to the idea that I am not using critical thinking when I support a victim off the bat.

I don't recall saying anything about support. I made a statement about belief. You can support them all you want...but if all they need to do is claim something for you to believe it and you don't require any evidence whatsoever...then you're not just creating a belief about their victimhood, you're creating a belief about someone else's guilt in a crime.

I object to the inference that I believe a victim of assault because of their race, gender or sexual orientation.

So if a straight white MAGA hat wearing Trump supporter claims he was the victim of a hate crime...an assault perpetrated by two gay black liberals who shouted racial/sexual epithets and made fun of his political views....and he had no evidence of it apart from the presence of a liquid he claimed was poured on him and the MAGA hat he had was clearly damaged.

You'd believe him?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Most of the media, is going to jump on a story that fits their narrative and give that story prominent coverage. We see it with fox, we see it with cnn and others.

That is the reality with most of todays media outlets.

I agree...

The liberal media did nothing wrong in reporting the facts. The right wing media did nothing wrong in reporting the facts.

The only thing the left did wrong was use the story to try and push a political agenda. Claiming that "attacks like these are a result of Trump's presidency"....isn't a fact, it's an opinion. I think that far too often, we've allowed these media sources to get away with mixing the opinions in right alongside the facts without any consequences.

The media isn't wrong for reporting facts...they're wrong for using them to push a political agenda.

 

[rambot]

I don't recall saying anything about support. I made a statement about belief. You can support them all you want...but if all they need to do is claim something for you to believe it and you don't require any evidence whatsoever...then you're not just creating a belief about their victimhood, you're creating a belief about someone else's guilt in a crime.

People believe things all the time. Sometimes people are right; sometimes wrong. Tell me, please, what is SOOOOO wrong about thinking someone else is guilty of a crime if there, LITERALLY no legal implications to me thinking it? It is of ABSOLUTELY no harm to the "perpetrator" when I am sitting across the office from someone who says they just got raped at a house party. And when that 15 year old girl says that to you, I wonder what would be the ultimate goal of saying to her, "You know, I'd like to believe you but I need more evidence"?
There is none.

When you BELIEVE a victim and support them, you are NOT sending the alleged perpetrator to jail. You are not really doing anything more than "thinking a mean thought about them". I've always had a HARD time wrapping my head around why that is so problematic considering the terribly ugly thoughts people have about others all the time.

So if a straight white MAGA hat wearing Trump supporter claims he was the victim of a hate crime...an assault perpetrated by two gay black liberals who shouted racial/sexual epithets and made fun of his political views....and he had no evidence of it apart from the presence of a liquid he claimed was poured on him and the MAGA hat he had was clearly damaged.
You'd believe him?

As hard as it is for you to believe it, yup I would.
I've seen plenty of photo evidence of trump supporters being beat up and I believed all the stories involved with those pictures. Should I not have been believing it all this time?
I didn't bother looking to see the context, I didn't check out their stories; I made NO effort to see if they were telling the truth.

Is it some kind of "Schrodinger's Assault" concept?

 

[rambot]

The police seem to have done a pretty good job at detecting the deception. They deal with actual and imagined offenses all the time and are trained in determining which ones are which.

And the role of police is to check the veracity of those claims and I understand that. When I was a counsellor, that was not my role. Now, as a nurturer/carer personality type (who still counsels) I will continue to do that.

However, the burden of proof, and in fact, the judicial system for sexual assault and rape (especially if no marks are left but even when there are) tends to come down to a "he said, she said" situation because defense attorneys no how to work around rape charges.

 

[rambot]

I agree...

The liberal media did nothing wrong in reporting the facts. The right wing media did nothing wrong in reporting the facts.

The only thing the left did wrong was use the story to try and push a political agenda. Claiming that "attacks like these are a result of Trump's presidency"....isn't a fact, it's an opinion. I think that far too often, we've allowed these media sources to get away with mixing the opinions in right alongside the facts without any consequences.

The media isn't wrong for reporting facts...they're wrong for using them to push a political agenda.

Fair enough. I'd be inclined to agree that newspapers probably shouldn't be doing that. Or at least that they should be keeping comments like that to the opinion pages (even though I do think they are likely correct, doesn't mean it's appropriate to put it in).

They could, however, leave it to scientists.
Do Trump Tweets Spur Hate Crimes?

There are plenty of news reports that show FBI data that suggests a strong correlation.

The problem is that, for whatever reason, Trump supporters get really "weird" about defining what a "fact" is and it doesn't seem uncommon to take attempts to just obfuscate data.

 

[rambot]

I hate to say I told you so...but it looks like Smellit is going to blame the police for this.

Jussie Smollett “Feels Betrayed” After $100K Bail Hearing; Says He’s Innocent

"Mr. Smollet is a young man of impeccable character and integrity who fiercely and solemnly maintains his innocence and feels betrayed by a system that apparently wants to skip due process and proceed directly to sentencing,” read a statement sent out late Thursday on behalf of the Empire actor.

“Today we witnessed an organized law enforcement spectacle that has no place in the American legal system,” the hyperbolic statement added. “The presumption of innocence, a bedrock in the search for justice, was trampled upon at the expense of Mr. Smollett and notably, on the eve of a Mayoral election,” it also noted, tossing more political edge into an already sharply political affair."

I'm not sure if this is just the prelude to a better argument against the police...but it seems rather silly to me. The police, as far as I can tell, did everything right. They investigated it as if Smollett was the victim until they had evidence that showed otherwise.

If, perhaps, this statement is referring to the statements made by police at his hearing...the police aren't obligated to "presume" anyone's innocence once they've arrested and charged them lol. That doesn't even make sense. They charged him precisely because the evidence is for his guilt. It's now the obligation of the court...which includes a jury...to presume his innocence.

dude man...jussie....stop the charade. They have the CHEQUE that you wrote them you fool.

 

[Ana the Ist]

People believe things all the time. Sometimes people are right; sometimes wrong. Tell me, please, what is SOOOOO wrong about thinking someone else is guilty of a crime if there, LITERALLY no legal implications to me thinking it? It is of ABSOLUTELY no harm to the "perpetrator" when I am sitting across the office from someone who says they just got raped at a house party. And when that 15 year old girl says that to you, I wonder what would be the ultimate goal of saying to her, "You know, I'd like to believe you but I need more evidence"?
There is none.

You do realize that I'm not speaking about your specific work environment and those very specific circumstances which you're talking about....right?

I'm talking about a larger context such as those surrounding the case where we all have access to the same claims, same facts, etc. Make sense?

I don't know what it is that you do....so I'm not going to argue with you about whatever you're trying to achieve at work.

When you BELIEVE a victim and support them, you are NOT sending the alleged perpetrator to jail. You are not really doing anything more than "thinking a mean thought about them". I've always had a HARD time wrapping my head around why that is so problematic considering the terribly ugly thoughts people have about others all the time.

Well I'll gladly explain it to you...

If the left were able to stop their "support" once there are consequences...we wouldn't be having this conversation. That's not the case though...the left supports the victim, and then starts working towards some vague notion of "justice".

It could be a person claiming they were victimized by racist cops...

It could be a woman claiming she was raped by a Supreme Court nominee 30 years after the fact...

It could be a gay black actor claiming he was victimized by Trump supporters in a hate crime....

If you want to believe them when there's no consequences because you think "it's the right thing to do"....fine. That's on you.

When they say that we need to restructure the entire police force, keep a man from his seat on the SCOTUS, or they filed a police report that could potentially send innocent men to jail....

Then you need to drop all your support and start asking for some evidence. If you don't, then you're the one perpetrating the injustice.

Make sense?

As hard as it is for you to believe it, yup I would.
I've seen plenty of photo evidence of trump supporters being beat up and I believed all the stories involved with those pictures. Should I not have been believing it all this time?
I didn't bother looking to see the context, I didn't check out their stories; I made NO effort to see if they were telling the truth.

Is it some kind of "Schrodinger's Assault" concept?

It's just a question. I apologize for assuming you held the same position as so many people on the left these days.

 

[Ana the Ist]

dude man...jussie....stop the charade. They have the CHEQUE that you wrote them you fool.

He can always claim that was for private "workouts". I remember reading they worked for him on the show or something along those lines...and I doubt that he wrote "for hate crime" in his checkbook lol.

I really think he may try to defend himself against this by painting the Chicago PD first as incompetent and then as racist. His lawyers may suggest that these brothers made a false confession due to pressure from the police and he's completely innocent. He can try to take advantage of the very public problems in the Chicago PD.

If that's his plan...I've no doubt that he will lean on this idea that as a "marginalized" person, no one should question his innocence....especially no one on the left.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Chicago Police Credit Their Extensive Experience Falsifying Evidence For Helping Solve Smollett Case

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Will he be charged with a hate crime?

That would be ironic.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Chicago Police Credit Their Extensive Experience Falsifying Evidence For Helping Solve Smollett Case

Pretty funny.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Fair enough. I'd be inclined to agree that newspapers probably shouldn't be doing that. Or at least that they should be keeping comments like that to the opinion pages (even though I do think they are likely correct, doesn't mean it's appropriate to put it in).

They could, however, leave it to scientists.
Do Trump Tweets Spur Hate Crimes?

There are plenty of news reports that show FBI data that suggests a strong correlation.

The problem is that, for whatever reason, Trump supporters get really "weird" about defining what a "fact" is and it doesn't seem uncommon to take attempts to just obfuscate data.

I'd like to tell you that I got to read the study and I think it's valid or invalid for whatever reasons...but when tried to download or open the pdf version, it asked for a subscription.

The problem with this idea....is that at the very least, it tries to lay some of the blame for a crime (in this case, hate crimes against muslims) at the feet of a person who didn't commit the crime.

I mean, at it's core, this is a ridiculous argument. The guy who shot Lennon (can't remember his name right now) claimed he was inspired by the words of JD Salinger's Catcher in the Rye....but it's generally understood that whether or not you believe this book inspired the crime, JD Salinger isn't to blame. In fact, anyone who does blame him...generally looked at as not so bright.

Now, if Trump tweets something like "people should go out and hurt these Muslims" and then people do just that....yeah, absolutely, that's wrong and it should be stopped.

If, however, Trump tweets "I hate this and this and these things about Muslims. I also hate these things about Islam" ....he's well within his rights and not responsible in any way for anything anyone does....even if they claim they were "inspired" by Trump's words.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The point isn't how many there are but who they voted for.

And that point is irrelevant. Do you remember the voter intimidation by the black Panthers in the 2008 election? A lot of black Panthers voted forObama. What does that tell you?

 

[rambot]

You do realize that I'm not speaking about your specific work environment and those very specific circumstances which you're talking about....right?

It seems that way to an outsider, but to someone who was raped, it doesn't feel that way for them.

I'm talking about a larger context such as those surrounding the case where we all have access to the same claims, same facts, etc. Make sense?

Wait what? You think that the general public ALWAYS "has access to the same claims, same facts"? I think that may be more than a bit misguided.

I don't know what it is that you do....so I'm not going to argue with you about whatever you're trying to achieve at work.

What I tried to achieve at that job is what I would want to achieve anytime I would speak to a victim of abuse; I would want their experiences to feel validated and I would want them to feel heard.

If the left were able to stop their "support" once there are consequences...we wouldn't be having this conversation. That's not the case though...the left supports the victim, and then starts working towards some vague notion of "justice".

No they don't. They just kvetch online, some of them would randomly make threats and a many would make "lock 'em up" type comments.

It could be a person claiming they were victimized by racist cops...

It could be a woman claiming she was raped by a Supreme Court nominee 30 years after the fact...

It could be a gay black actor claiming he was victimized by Trump supporters in a hate crime....

If you want to believe them when there's no consequences because you think "it's the right thing to do"....fine. That's on you.

When they say that we need to restructure the entire police force, keep a man from his seat on the SCOTUS, or they filed a police report that could potentially send innocent men to jail....

Then you need to drop all your support and start asking for some evidence. If you don't, then you're the one perpetrating the injustice.

No. You don't need to drop all your support. I have no problem with asking or needing evidence. If police evidence turns up direct evidence of wrong doing (as in Jussie's case) THEN you have a GREAT reason to abandon your position.
But just because something happenned 30 years ago does not mean it was untrue. I fully believe the victim in the SCOTUS case and though I feel the evidence I've seen is a circumstantial, there was a culture that fostered these behaviours.

I would suggest that maintaining a thought that someone is guilty when they are not does not perpetuate injustice. I think Kavanaugh is guilty. That means either I'm right or I'm wrong. I am not perpetuating anything by holding that view.

It's just a question. I apologize for assuming you held the same position as so many people on the left these days.

Yeah. Just came at you a bit hard on that. No sweat.
I don't define how I react to people based identity politics; compassion above labels.

And even though I threw that phrase out flippantly, "Shrodinger's Assault" does feel like an apt description of your take on how to approach claims of assault.

 

[Hank77]

And that point is irrelevant. Do you remember the voter intimidation by the black Panthers in the 2008 election? A lot of black Panthers voted forObama. What does that tell you?

It tells me they wanted a black president who would understand the problems faced by blacks in the US.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

It tells me they wanted a black president who would understand the problems faced by blacks in the US.

So you then agree that racist people voting for a president doesn't make that president racist.