:huh:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/26/jussie-smollett-charges-dropped-latest-news-maga-attack-lies-accusations-empire-actor
QuoteProsecutors agreed Tuesday to drop criminal charges against Empire actor Jussie Smollett for faking a hate crime attack in Chicago.
Smollett was charged with 16 counts of felony disorderly conduct for allegedly hiring two men to stage the racist, homophobic attack against him in downtown Chicago earlier this year.
Smollett spoke out after the surprise development in a case that has generated more questions than answers.
"I have been truthful and consistent on every single level since day one. I would not be my mother's son if I was capable of one drop of what I've been accused of," Smollett said Tuesday.
"This has been an incredibly difficult time, honestly one of the worst of my entire life," he said. But I am a man of faith, and I am a man that has knowledge of my history, and I would not bring my family, our lives or the movement through a fire like this. I just wouldn't."
Smollett, who is gay and black, said he was walking home from a sandwich shop in downtown Chicago around 2am on 29 January when two men approached him, shouting racist and homophobic slurs, beat him up, poured bleach on him and looped a rope around his neck.
He claimed the attackers said, "This is Maga country," referring to Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" election campaign slogan.
Chicago police said he faked the attack because he was unhappy about his salary and wanted to drum up publicity to help his career, accusing him of taking advantage of the pain and anger of racism to promote himself.
Smollett has maintained his innocence and pleaded not guilty to the charges.
A judge agreed at a brief court hearing on Tuesday to prosecutors' request to dismiss the charges, the Chicago Tribune reported, and ordered the case file sealed.
"After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollet's volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case," the Cook County state's attorney's office said in statement to the paper.
Smollett agreed to forfeit the $10,000 he has paid on a $100,000 bond, said his lawyer Patricia Brown Holmes.
"It was the correct result in this case. We're very happy for this result, and we are very anxious for Jussie to get on with his career and his life," she said.
Many questions remain unanswered about the incident. Police have said Smollett paid two brothers $3,500 to stage the attack. Smollett's lawyers said the payment was for nutrition and personal training services.
Chicago police did not immediately comment, but a source told the Chicago Sun Times superintendent Eddie Johnson was "furious" and maintained the evidence against Smollett was "rock solid".
He's exonerated. Just like Trump.
The Times is reporting that he had to forfeit his bond to obtain the deal. Based on that it sounds like the prosecutors decided it was not worth prosecuting and took the bond money as compensation for the unnecessary expense of responding to the allegations he had been assaulted.
:lol: Gotta love Chicago.
Hope he finds the real assailants.
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2019, 01:17:43 PM
:lol: Gotta love Chicago.
Hope he finds the real assailants.
Um...this response makes no sense. Chicago is not saying that he was innocent or that there are real assailants out there. This seems like a perfectly good way to save government time and money. So what is funny about it? What do you think should have happened?
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2019, 01:28:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2019, 01:17:43 PM
:lol: Gotta love Chicago.
Hope he finds the real assailants.
Um...this response makes no sense. Chicago is not saying that he was innocent or that there are real assailants out there. This seems like a perfectly good way to save government time and money. So what is funny about it? What do you think should have happened?
Seems like pay enough money and you get away free.
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2019, 01:33:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2019, 01:28:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2019, 01:17:43 PM
:lol: Gotta love Chicago.
Hope he finds the real assailants.
Um...this response makes no sense. Chicago is not saying that he was innocent or that there are real assailants out there. This seems like a perfectly good way to save government time and money. So what is funny about it? What do you think should have happened?
Seems like pay enough money and you get away free.
Sure but it was a victimless crime right? So spend lots of state money and what would have been the possible likely result?
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2019, 01:28:02 PM
Chicago is not saying that he was innocent or that there are real assailants out there.
no, no, we live in the Post Trump era now. As long as you don't go to prison, you are totally innocent.
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2019, 01:35:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2019, 01:33:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2019, 01:28:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2019, 01:17:43 PM
:lol: Gotta love Chicago.
Hope he finds the real assailants.
Um...this response makes no sense. Chicago is not saying that he was innocent or that there are real assailants out there. This seems like a perfectly good way to save government time and money. So what is funny about it? What do you think should have happened?
Seems like pay enough money and you get away free.
Sure but it was a victimless crime right? So spend lots of state money and what would have been the possible likely result?
The likely result would have been a fine, probably to close to the amount of money he forfeited with his bond. So yeah, good call here.
I agree that the underlying crime was victimless and all, but I would have liked to have seen a lying to police charge stick.
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2019, 01:28:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2019, 01:17:43 PM
:lol: Gotta love Chicago.
Hope he finds the real assailants.
Um...this response makes no sense. Chicago is not saying that he was innocent or that there are real assailants out there. This seems like a perfectly good way to save government time and money. So what is funny about it? What do you think should have happened?
I guess I should be happy about this. Sorry :(
I mean, he only wasted 1000 police man hours and 40 detectives were pulled off other cases to investigate his case. Hoaxes like this also make it more difficult for actual victims. Prosecuting his case might help discourage others from such hoaxes. But yeah, let's break out the party hats and confetti because Chicago saved some time & money by letting him go.
Quote from: viper37 on March 26, 2019, 01:40:11 PM
The likely result would have been a fine, probably to close to the amount of money he forfeited with his bond. So yeah, good call here.
It was 16 felony counts.
Edit: from what I googled, each one could have been worth 1-3 years in prison and up to $3000 fine.
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2019, 02:06:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2019, 01:28:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2019, 01:17:43 PM
:lol: Gotta love Chicago.
Hope he finds the real assailants.
Um...this response makes no sense. Chicago is not saying that he was innocent or that there are real assailants out there. This seems like a perfectly good way to save government time and money. So what is funny about it? What do you think should have happened?
I guess I should be happy about this. Sorry :(
I mean, he only wasted 1000 police man hours and 40 detectives were pulled off other cases to investigate his case. Hoaxes like this also make it more difficult for actual victims. Prosecuting his case might help discourage others from such hoaxes. But yeah, let's break out the party hats and confetti because Chicago saved some time & money by letting him go.
Oddly enough, what D said.
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2019, 01:35:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2019, 01:33:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2019, 01:28:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2019, 01:17:43 PM
:lol: Gotta love Chicago.
Hope he finds the real assailants.
Um...this response makes no sense. Chicago is not saying that he was innocent or that there are real assailants out there. This seems like a perfectly good way to save government time and money. So what is funny about it? What do you think should have happened?
Seems like pay enough money and you get away free.
Sure but it was a victimless crime right? So spend lots of state money and what would have been the possible likely result?
People are going on about how Chicago PD* is corrupt and tried to frame him. Gotta love twitter
*I mean its true, but in this case Jussie still did it
Another non-joke crime is false charges.
Not a good move judge.
This reeks of prosecutorial corruption.
The mayor of Chicago (certainly not someone who has never seen corruption before. :D ) is strongly hinting there was a corrupt deal here - and it seems likely.
The head prosecutor had to recuse herself because she was caught in a conflict. Now her replacement has dropped the case. And the judge has sealed the court records.
https://www.tmz.com/2019/03/26/jussie-smollettt-plea-bargain-charges-dropped-dismissed/
QuoteState's Attorney Kim Foxx's office says, "After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollett's volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case."
...
We're told the State's Attorney, Kim Foxx, told Chicago police she was dropping the case because Jussie would have only gotten community service if convicted and she said he has already performed community service so there is no point in prosecuting him. We could not find any record of Smollett doing community service.
So is the guy still insisting he is the victim of a horribly disgusting hate crime?
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 26, 2019, 04:23:46 PM
So is the guy still insisting he is the victim of a horribly disgusting hate crime?
Speaking to reporters outside the courtroom, Smollett maintained his innocence.
"I've been truthful and consistent on every single level since day one," he said. "I would not be my mother's son if I was capable of one drop of what I've been accused of."
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/michaelblackmon/jussie-smollett-charges-dropped
Was he adopted?
Wonder if Jussie is still blaming "fear mongrels" (his words).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E45gPnqnCA
Not just the Police Chief, Rahm is pissing all over the deal too. This story is not over.
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2019, 05:51:30 PM
Wonder if Jussie is still blaming "fear mongrels" (his words).
Maybe he's blaming the Deep State. That seems to work these days.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2019, 06:09:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2019, 05:51:30 PM
Wonder if Jussie is still blaming "fear mongrels" (his words).
Maybe he's blaming the Deep State. That seems to work these days.
Is there ever a second you're not thinking about Trump?
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2019, 06:16:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2019, 06:09:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 26, 2019, 05:51:30 PM
Wonder if Jussie is still blaming "fear mongrels" (his words).
Maybe he's blaming the Deep State. That seems to work these days.
Is there ever a second you're not thinking about Trump?
I didn't mention Trump.
Indirectly.
Has Trump ever used that term? Not really his thing.
I believe so.
I could see Hannity or that skinny bald freak in the White House using it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2019, 02:06:20 PM
I agree that the underlying crime was victimless and all, but I would have liked to have seen a lying to police charge stick.
I disagree that it was victimless. It was a false accusation that was deleterious to the social fabric of the nation. Not to mention a waste of police resources.
This has not been a great week for the left.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2019, 08:22:00 PM
I could see Hannity or that skinny bald freak in the White House using it.
I think this might be the first time someone called Sarah Sanders a "skinny bald freak".
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2019, 09:17:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2019, 08:22:00 PM
I could see Hannity or that skinny bald freak in the White House using it.
I think this might be the first time someone called Sarah Sanders a "skinny bald freak".
Stephen Miller. (Not sure if you were joking or not)
Raz is inscrutable.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 27, 2019, 12:06:27 AM
Raz is inscrutable.
Here's one to exercise your noodle on: Rich people don't face legal consequences as often as ordinary people do, and when the rich escape punishment ordinary people often cheer it on.
That one's easy.
I don't really see this as a victimless crime. People who suffer from future hate crimes my well face a higher bar to get their accounts believed because of this.
In fact I think it is a particularly serious crime and would go for a very severe sentence if i had had the misfortune to be a Chicago prosecutor.
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2019, 04:13:05 PM
This reeks of prosecutorial corruption.
Maybe. Or maybe he/she just thought there were more important cases to solve with the limited resources at their disposal? Or it could be that the evidence gathered was circumstantial, hard to really convince a jury it was a premeditated setup to increase his value on the show? Maybe the 16 counts were there not to secure a conviction but to scare him into a confession/plea bargain instead of a trial?
Quote from: viper37 on March 27, 2019, 10:30:41 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2019, 04:13:05 PM
This reeks of prosecutorial corruption.
Maybe. Or maybe he/she just thought there were more important cases to solve with the limited resources at their disposal? Or it could be that the evidence gathered was circonstancial, hard to really convince a jury it was a premeditated setup to increase his value on the show? Maybe the 16 counts were there not to secure a conviction but to scare him into a confession/plea bargain instead of a trial?
The evidence, as I understand it, was overwhelming. I mean, the cops caught the two dudes he hired to fake the attack, and they confessed. I dunno if they have to prove why he staged it, only that he did.
The prosecutors claim that they let him off the hook in part because he's done "community service". I don't know if it is even possible to do community service in advance of committing a crime, and have that count (can I collect garbage for a month, and have that entitle me to one free false report to the police? :D ). Nor, from what I read, is there any actual evidence of "community service" performed.
It sounds more like 'this guy is a famous actor, he's too important or has too many connections to prosecute'.
That he has important connections is not in doubt - the previous prosecutor had to take herself off the case when it was revealed she was in direct communication with his family, trying to influence the investigation against him.
Quote from: Malthus on March 27, 2019, 10:46:57 AM
That he has important connections is not in doubt - the previous prosecutor had to take herself off the case when it was revealed she was in direct communication with his family, trying to influence the investigation against him.
Didn't she recuse herself, but then step back in? I think she's the same one that dropped the charges.
Quote from: Malthus on March 27, 2019, 10:46:57 AM
The evidence, as I understand it, was overwhelming. I mean, the cops caught the two dudes he hired to fake the attack, and they confessed. I dunno if they have to prove why he staged it, only that he did.
The prosecutors claim that they let him off the hook in part because he's done "community service". I don't know if it is even possible to do community service in advance of committing a crime, and have that count (can I collect garbage for a month, and have that entitle me to one free false report to the police? :D ). Nor, from what I read, is there any actual evidence of "community service" performed.
It sounds more like 'this guy is a famous actor, he's too important or has too many connections to prosecute'.
That he has important connections is not in doubt - the previous prosecutor had to take herself off the case when it was revealed she was in direct communication with his family, trying to influence the investigation against him.
I don't know. I do read a lot about "financial ties to George Sorros", and whenever I read a "Jewish conspiracy", I tend to be very, very skeptical of corruption accusations. I know it wasn't what you said, but it's a popular theory in Republican circles right now.
But I haven't followed the case in all its details, it was a boring story to begin with. People get mugged everyday in big cities. "Famous" actor (I would dispute that, since I know nothing of the dude, but then again, I ain't too familiar with actors&actresses of minor tv series).
What I do know is that in many cases, crown prosecutors or district attorneys will seek out a plea bargain rather than risk a full trial and an acquittal. The guy has money, he can afford a bunch of pretty good lawyers, drag this on indefinately, get the case tossed out on a technicality, etc.
Without any hard evidence there was corruption, I'm inclined to believe in prosecutorial lazyness (i.e. "This is not worth my time, I have murder cases to prosecute") or incompetence in not correctly evaluating the evidences at hand. It is entirely possible the witnesses aren't believed to be credible once on the witness stand, maybe they have priors in other things that would come up, etc, etc.
Anyway. I do not care a lot, guilty, not guilty, prison, no prison, bah.
Quote from: viper37 on March 27, 2019, 01:11:49 PM
I don't know. I do read a lot about "financial ties to George Sorros", and whenever I read a "Jewish conspiracy", I tend to be very, very skeptical of corruption accusations. I know it wasn't what you said, but it's a popular theory in Republican circles right now.
But I haven't followed the case in all its details, it was a boring story to begin with. People get mugged everyday in big cities. "Famous" actor (I would dispute that, since I know nothing of the dude, but then again, I ain't too familiar with actors&actresses of minor tv series).
What I do know is that in many cases, crown prosecutors or district attorneys will seek out a plea bargain rather than risk a full trial and an acquittal. The guy has money, he can afford a bunch of pretty good lawyers, drag this on indefinately, get the case tossed out on a technicality, etc.
Without any hard evidence there was corruption, I'm inclined to believe in prosecutorial lazyness (i.e. "This is not worth my time, I have murder cases to prosecute") or incompetence in not correctly evaluating the evidences at hand. It is entirely possible the witnesses aren't believed to be credible once on the witness stand, maybe they have priors in other things that would come up, etc, etc.
Anyway. I do not care a lot, guilty, not guilty, prison, no prison, bah.
The allegation wasn't that he was mugged, it was that he was the victim of a deliberate hate crime. That's what makes it egregious - it was apparently an attempt to stir up racial hatred, for some sort of personal reasons. This is all kinds of bad - if it was successful, it could lead to all sorts of unpleasant social impact; its failure casts doubt on other claims of racial attacks, to the benefit of violent racists everywhere.
The failure to prosecute sends the message that those who are connected are above the law. Or alternately, that making false claims about serious crimes isn't a big deal.
Quote from: Camerus on March 26, 2019, 09:14:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2019, 02:06:20 PM
I agree that the underlying crime was victimless and all, but I would have liked to have seen a lying to police charge stick.
I disagree that it was victimless. It was a false accusation that was deleterious to the social fabric of the nation. Not to mention a waste of police resources.
This has not been a great week for the left.
What does "the left" have to do with this development exactly :huh:
I'm assuming this guy is both a) going to get his role back on his show, and b) going to get paid more cash moneys.
All in all, a job well done. I'm actually not mad, just impressed. And disappointed in myself.
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 27, 2019, 01:38:14 PM
I'm assuming this guy is both a) going to get his role back on his show, and b) going to get paid more cash moneys.
All in all, a job well done. I'm actually not mad, just impressed. And disappointed in myself.
That a fact? Well that does kind of change my views on this. I thought the initial deal was some kind of guilty plea and the understanding his career as a public figure was over.
Why would it have a significant impact on his career? In the acting world convicted criminals get hired all the time.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 27, 2019, 01:30:34 PM
Quote from: Camerus on March 26, 2019, 09:14:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2019, 02:06:20 PM
I agree that the underlying crime was victimless and all, but I would have liked to have seen a lying to police charge stick.
I disagree that it was victimless. It was a false accusation that was deleterious to the social fabric of the nation. Not to mention a waste of police resources.
This has not been a great week for the left.
What does "the left" have to do with this development exactly :huh:
It's never a good day for the left when the rich and powerful escape punishment for their crimes.
Quote from: Malthus on March 27, 2019, 10:46:57 AM
Quote from: viper37 on March 27, 2019, 10:30:41 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2019, 04:13:05 PM
This reeks of prosecutorial corruption.
Maybe. Or maybe he/she just thought there were more important cases to solve with the limited resources at their disposal? Or it could be that the evidence gathered was circonstancial, hard to really convince a jury it was a premeditated setup to increase his value on the show? Maybe the 16 counts were there not to secure a conviction but to scare him into a confession/plea bargain instead of a trial?
The evidence, as I understand it, was overwhelming. I mean, the cops caught the two dudes he hired to fake the attack, and they confessed. I dunno if they have to prove why he staged it, only that he did.
CPD has a history of torturing confessions out of minorities though. They've had to be pay out over 150 million due to lawsuits over this.
So, even if Smollet is 100% guilty I think there's definitely a possibility that the cops did something shady to get the proof and the prosecutors dropped the case rather than risk having high priced lawyers bring that to light.
Given that Trump is now inserting himself into the story, it is likely to become even more of a clusterfuck than it is already:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-jussie-smollett/trump-calls-smollett-case-embarrassment-announces-review-idUSKCN1R91C2
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 28, 2019, 01:31:28 AM
So, even if Smollet is 100% guilty I think there's definitely a possibility that the cops did something shady to get the proof and the prosecutors dropped the case rather than risk having high priced lawyers bring that to light.
There is at least some evidence that there are problems in the prosecutor's office over this case (the head prosecutor had to withdraw from the case over a conflict of interest). So far, there isn't any evidence about the cops. Though no doubt we shall see, in excruciating detail ...
We'll they certainly have been leaking a lot to the press, which they shouldn't be doing.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 27, 2019, 01:30:34 PM
Quote from: Camerus on March 26, 2019, 09:14:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2019, 02:06:20 PM
I agree that the underlying crime was victimless and all, but I would have liked to have seen a lying to police charge stick.
I disagree that it was victimless. It was a false accusation that was deleterious to the social fabric of the nation. Not to mention a waste of police resources.
This has not been a great week for the left.
What does "the left" have to do with this development exactly :huh:
Smollett was briefly given hero status by several SJWs on the left. I wouldn't extrapolate that to the left at large, but if the "attack" had actually occurred it would have given teh left a cudgel to beat Trump supporters with.
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2019, 08:31:12 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on March 27, 2019, 01:30:34 PM
Quote from: Camerus on March 26, 2019, 09:14:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2019, 02:06:20 PM
I agree that the underlying crime was victimless and all, but I would have liked to have seen a lying to police charge stick.
I disagree that it was victimless. It was a false accusation that was deleterious to the social fabric of the nation. Not to mention a waste of police resources.
This has not been a great week for the left.
What does "the left" have to do with this development exactly :huh:
Smollett was briefly given hero status by several SJWs on the left. I wouldn't extrapolate that to the left at large, but if the "attack" had actually occurred it would have given teh left a cudgel to beat Trump supporters with.
Sadly true.
Why would that be sad if true? I mean, yes sad that Trump supporters took his rhetoric to attack minorities, but why sad that reasonable people would have used it as yet another example of the hurt that Trump has caused?
Quote from: garbon on March 28, 2019, 11:13:09 AM
but why sad that reasonable people would have used it as yet another example of the hurt that Trump has caused?
SJW aren't reasonable.
The far left isn't reasonable.
A reasonable person would have waited at least for the police to complete an investigation before attacking Trump, or anyone else on this.
If a woman claims to have been raped in the subway by a gang of black people with rastas, the far right would have used it as yet another example that black&minorities are dangerous. Are they reasonable people? I do not think so. Wait at least for the police to confirm the facts, to arrest a suspect. Eye-witness testimonies are very often unreliable. 3 people watching the same event will have 3 versions of what happened.
The overreaction of some people on social medias (fortunately, no major newspaper seems to have run the story on condemning Trump for this) was the problem. The overreaction of the unreasonable people gave credence to Trump's paranoia that everyone is out to get him and smear his "good reputation", that's how his supporters see it, and many "on the fence" are likely to find him much more sympathetic after this and the MAGA hat kids.
Quote from: Malthus on March 28, 2019, 07:39:58 AM
Given that Trump is now inserting himself into the story, it is likely to become even more of a clusterfuck than it is already:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-jussie-smollett/trump-calls-smollett-case-embarrassment-announces-review-idUSKCN1R91C2
Right - if there was corruption here, a federal probe might be warranted. Trump's intervention basically guarantees that the targets of such probes could complain of politically motivated prosecution.
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2019, 08:31:12 AM
I wouldn't extrapolate that to the left at large, but if the "attack" had actually occurred it would have given teh left a cudgel to beat Trump supporters with.
It's really too bad. Now there are no more arguments left against Trump supporters.
Quote from: viper37 on March 27, 2019, 10:30:41 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2019, 04:13:05 PM
This reeks of prosecutorial corruption.
Maybe. Or maybe he/she just thought there were more important cases to solve with the limited resources at their disposal? Or it could be that the evidence gathered was circonstancial, hard to really convince a jury it was a premeditated setup to increase his value on the show? Maybe the 16 counts were there not to secure a conviction but to scare him into a confession/plea bargain instead of a trial?
There was no plea deal. He agreed to forfeit his bond in return for the charges being dropped, but there was no requirement that he confess. In fact, he is instead continuing to maintain that he is innocent.
What does "circonstantial" mean? Was it a typo and you intended to type "circumstantial"?
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2019, 08:31:12 AM
Smollett was briefly given hero status by several SJWs on the left. I wouldn't extrapolate that to the left at large, but if the "attack" had actually occurred it would have given teh left a cudgel to beat Trump supporters with.
Why would you care?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2019, 03:10:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2019, 08:31:12 AM
Smollett was briefly given hero status by several SJWs on the left. I wouldn't extrapolate that to the left at large, but if the "attack" had actually occurred it would have given teh left a cudgel to beat Trump supporters with.
Why would you care?
About what?
Quote from: dps on March 28, 2019, 02:23:22 PM
What does "circonstantial" mean? Was it a typo and you intended to type "circumstantial"?
yes. sorry. I'm getting worst at writing in the only 2 languages I know. :blush:
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2019, 03:49:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2019, 03:10:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2019, 08:31:12 AM
Smollett was briefly given hero status by several SJWs on the left. I wouldn't extrapolate that to the left at large, but if the "attack" had actually occurred it would have given teh left a cudgel to beat Trump supporters with.
Why would you care?
About what?
About Trump supporters. Why would you care about Trump supporters?[/size]
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2019, 05:32:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2019, 03:49:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2019, 03:10:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2019, 08:31:12 AM
Smollett was briefly given hero status by several SJWs on the left. I wouldn't extrapolate that to the left at large, but if the "attack" had actually occurred it would have given teh left a cudgel to beat Trump supporters with.
About Trump supporters. Why would you care about Trump supporters? proper quotes?
Why would you care?
About what?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2019, 05:32:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2019, 03:49:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2019, 03:10:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2019, 08:31:12 AM
Smollett was briefly given hero status by several SJWs on the left. I wouldn't extrapolate that to the left at large, but if the "attack" had actually occurred it would have given teh left a cudgel to beat Trump supporters with.
Why would you care?
About what?
About Trump supporters. Why would you care about Trump supporters?[/size]
How does that relate to my post? I was trying to answer the question on how the Smollett fake noose turned out to be a loss for the left.
"The left" has nothing to gain or lose from charges being dropped. I don't get your point.
Charges being dropped does not make it a bad week for "the left".
It's an insignificant case, but it's disingenuous to claim no political component. The left gets mileage from right-wing terror attacks and hate crimes, much like the right benefits from Muslim terror attacks.
But the relevant question is how much mileage the left would get out of a faked left wing terror/hate/whatever.
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2019, 09:48:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2019, 05:32:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2019, 03:49:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2019, 03:10:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2019, 08:31:12 AM
Smollett was briefly given hero status by several SJWs on the left. I wouldn't extrapolate that to the left at large, but if the "attack" had actually occurred it would have given teh left a cudgel to beat Trump supporters with.
Why would you care?
About what?
About Trump supporters. Why would you care about Trump supporters?
How does that relate to my post? I was trying to answer the question on how the Smollett fake noose turned out to be a loss for the left.
Ugh, I'm really screwing up posts here. I'm asking why you would give a shit about a cudgel to beat Trump supporters. You aren't a Trump supporter, you have no dog in this fight. If someone staged something to be a cudgel to beat Scientologists, or Al Sharpton supporters I wouldn't care one way or another.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 27, 2019, 01:30:34 PM
Quote from: Camerus on March 26, 2019, 09:14:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2019, 02:06:20 PM
I agree that the underlying crime was victimless and all, but I would have liked to have seen a lying to police charge stick.
I disagree that it was victimless. It was a false accusation that was deleterious to the social fabric of the nation. Not to mention a waste of police resources.
This has not been a great week for the left.
What does "the left" have to do with this development exactly :huh:
I submit it's something of a minor taint (sorry Tim) to the progressive brand. Here's why.
Jussie Smollett faked a hate crime allegedly perpetrated by cartoonish right-wing thugs. The hoax was staged to riff off of existing political polarization and fears. People understandably condemned the attack at first, but he continued to get signifcant amounts of sympathy from some prominent lefties in the initial days even as certain details came out that made his version of events sound like BS.
Eventually the sheer avalanche of BS convinced almost everyone he was a faker, but he never stopped spewing SJW rhetoric - e.g. he, this immensely privileged and self-serving figure, will continue to fight for "marginalized people" with whom he appears to be identifying, in spite of his manifest privilege- including the power to get away with crimes scott free! Indeed, in spite of his obvious guilt, the case against him was dropped under mysterious circumstances, possibly due to his lefty connections, including to a former Obama staffer.
Not only does it make claims of MAGA racist attacks less believable in the future, it also makes progressive rhetoric seem slightly more hollow. Lastly it suggests there's a different standard of justice for wealthy famous folks with lefty political connections - a particular problem given the ostensible point of progressivism in the first place.
The net result is, as I said, a minor taint for the left in our current moment.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/27/opinions/jussie-smollett-charges-we-are-the-problem-bailey/index.html
QuoteJussie Smollett isn't the problem. We are
I have a confession. I never much cared about the Jussie Smollett case, even before it became the most confounding story of the year, even if what he initially claimed had been proven true.
That he faced several felony counts before escaping any real legal accountability for possibly faking a hate crime moves me even less. Am I really supposed to be shocked that a celebrity avoided jail time in an American criminal justice system that attorney and civil rights activist Bryan Stevenson rightly says treats you better if you are rich and guilty than poor and innocent?
The real story is less what this bizarre series of confounding events says about Smollett and more about what it says about us.
I hate hate crimes as much as any other thinking person. But hate crimes and the like that involve celebrities who ultimately go unharmed -- the n-word spray-painted on a gate at one of LeBron James' homes, Oprah Winfrey being racially profiled in a chic boutique -- and receive instant support from millions of people have never felt compelling to me. (Smollett, by his own telling, still had the wherewithal to take his recently purchased Subway sandwich home after the alleged attack.)
They don't need our help, but we feel compelled to give it anyway, even as the least powerful among us who face worse indignities daily are left to fend for themselves.
When a black waiter in a Myrtle Beach Southern buffet restaurant came up to me distraught during lunch one day a couple of years ago because a white man a couple of booths over had called him "boy," that stopped me in my tracks. Because he had no recourse. He needed the job and couldn't afford to make a stink. His white colleagues told him to just ignore it, so he just swallowed hard and got back to work. Waitresses all across the country face the same dilemma from men who touch and speak to them in demeaning ways.
I'm more concerned with the disturbing rate of harm that is too frequently visited upon trans women, particularly trans women of color, and the rise of white supremacist acts that led to the slaughter of Jewish and black people during worship and Bible study.
I started caring about the Smollett story because of the reaction to the story, because we've come to view the justice system as just another tool to push political agendas instead of the best way to determine truth and ensure justice. George Zimmerman became a hero among some conservatives when he was found not guilty of the murder of Trayvon Martin -- even though we know Zimmerman began that chain of events that resulted in Martin's death.
Many liberals howled when Paul Manafort was given "only" four years in prison -- even though liberals have been fighting against mass incarceration and unduly long and harsh prison sentences. This past weekend, some conservatives cheered when Attorney General William Barr said the Mueller report showed insufficient evidence that the Donald Trump campaign had conspired with Russia -- even though they had spent several months calling the investigation a witch hunt and hoax and arguing that Robert Mueller and the other investigators couldn't be trusted.
It should not pass notice that many of those declaring President Trump innocent of any wrongdoing because he faces no charges and because of a summary of a report none of them has read aren't willing to do the same for Smollett.
But maybe the least credible actors in this saga are the Chicago police and Mayor Rahm Emanuel, each of whom have expressed outrage that Smollett is no longer in legal peril and that the case has been sealed. Chicago police and Emanuel were among those who made it harder to hold the police officer who killed Laquan McDonald accountable until the forced release of the video documenting that crime led to the officer's conviction.
That doesn't include the Chicago police's history of torturing black men and a judge's decision just weeks ago to declare the officers who made numerous false statements about the McDonald shooting not guilty.
Smollett shouldn't be top of mind, no matter whether he's telling the truth or really staged a phony attack to boost his chances of getting a raise. But he is. That doesn't mean he should be scapegoated for our inability to focus on things far more important. That's our fault, not his.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2019, 11:01:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2019, 09:48:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2019, 05:32:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2019, 03:49:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2019, 03:10:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2019, 08:31:12 AM
Smollett was briefly given hero status by several SJWs on the left. I wouldn't extrapolate that to the left at large, but if the "attack" had actually occurred it would have given teh left a cudgel to beat Trump supporters with.
Why would you care?
About what?
About Trump supporters. Why would you care about Trump supporters?
How does that relate to my post? I was trying to answer the question on how the Smollett fake noose turned out to be a loss for the left.
Ugh, I'm really screwing up posts here. I'm asking why you would give a shit about a cudgel to beat Trump supporters. You aren't a Trump supporter, you have no dog in this fight. If someone staged something to be a cudgel to beat Scientologists, or Al Sharpton supporters I wouldn't care one way or another.
I guess that aspect doesn't really bother me that much. And again, it's irrelevant given the context of my post.
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2019, 07:39:42 AM
I guess that aspect doesn't really bother me that much. And again, it's irrelevant given the context of my post.
Good. It doesn't bother me that much either. In fact, it shouldn't bother anyone.
Quote from: Camerus on March 29, 2019, 06:49:02 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on March 27, 2019, 01:30:34 PM
Quote from: Camerus on March 26, 2019, 09:14:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2019, 02:06:20 PM
I agree that the underlying crime was victimless and all, but I would have liked to have seen a lying to police charge stick.
I disagree that it was victimless. It was a false accusation that was deleterious to the social fabric of the nation. Not to mention a waste of police resources.
This has not been a great week for the left.
What does "the left" have to do with this development exactly :huh:
I submit it's something of a minor taint (sorry Tim) to the progressive brand. Here's why.
Jussie Smollett faked a hate crime allegedly perpetrated by cartoonish right-wing thugs. The hoax was staged to riff off of existing political polarization and fears. People understandably condemned the attack at first, but he continued to get signifcant amounts of sympathy from some prominent lefties in the initial days even as certain details came out that made his version of events sound like BS.
Eventually the sheer avalanche of BS convinced almost everyone he was a faker, but he never stopped spewing SJW rhetoric - e.g. he, this immensely privileged and self-serving figure, will continue to fight for "marginalized people" with whom he appears to be identifying, in spite of his manifest privilege- including the power to get away with crimes scott free! Indeed, in spite of his obvious guilt, the case against him was dropped under mysterious circumstances, possibly due to his lefty connections, including to a former Obama staffer.
Not only does it make claims of MAGA racist attacks less believable in the future, it also makes progressive rhetoric seem slightly more hollow. Lastly it suggests there's a different standard of justice for wealthy famous folks with lefty political connections - a particular problem given the ostensible point of progressivism in the first place.
The net result is, as I said, a minor taint for the left in our current moment.
Let's agree to disagree.
K.