• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jussie Smollett arrested and faces a felony charge for allegedly filing false police report

ttwtt78640 said:
It seemed to have worked for Trump during the 2016 primaries. Any press coverage, even negative, beats no press coverage for name recognition - very important for acting and political careers. Marion Barry won re-election as DC mayor even after serving jail time for smoking crack with a prostitute in a hotel room complete with video evidence.
Click to expand...

my question is why was he not put in jail like any other person that would be caught in the same situation.
we have a two tiered justice system and frankly i am getting sick of it.

That is just like whats her name busted for all that cocaine. she was ordered to rehab like 5 times. i don't think she
served a day in jail. where if it would have been me or you we would have been locked up for 5 years.
 
Harshaw said:
There's no evidence that any "attack" occurred, period.
Click to expand...

How is there no evidence of an assault. There was a police report filed.

Interesting that you changed "we" to "some" here.
Click to expand...

I don't speak for other people; and I have barely have been following this story. I never stated my opinion on this case.
 
nota bene said:
The letter had white powder (crushed Tylenol) in it. White powder gets everybody's attention.
Click to expand...

Apparently, not. Most people never heard of that incident before this case. The letter incident is a potential motive.
 
mike2810 said:
One reason why I have said todays news reporting is poor. Everyone rushing to get a story out without fact checking. It is the world were people want instant answers. My stance has always been let the investigation run its course. Then we can know what happened.

Smollett dug his own hole.
Click to expand...

All they have to do is report what Jussie said. That's not the same as lying or spreading missinfo. As more details come out, it adds to the story. The story is still emerging.

Some people really don't know the difference between lying and reporting on claims made by a liar.
 
Hedgology said:
How is there no evidence of an assault. There was a police report filed.
Click to expand...

200.gif



I don't speak for other people; and I have barely have been following this story. I never stated my opinion on this case.
Click to expand...

Then why did you type "All we know is that it didn't happen the way we initially thought" originally?
 
MrWonka said:
Sorry, but no. We should not allow one ****ty idiot's lie to have any bearing on what we make of the next accusation. This is the exact type of stupid mentality that makes so many women who have been assaulted or raped not come forward. One ****ty woman makes up a story to get back at her boyfriend, and all of a sudden every single solitary woman who comes forward is attacked and lambasted unless she can produce HD video evidence of the incident.

This idiot's lie has absolutely nothing to do with the next one. Already in the last 48 hours, we have two additional examples of violent right-wing ass clowns trying to carry out a similar act. One **** head stormed into a Latino-owned business looking to beat up a Mexican, another Military member was plotting to mass murder liberals and journalists.

This is not a boy who cried wolf situation. This idiot will go to jail, but when the next boy we send to watch over the sheep yells wolf we should come running and not let the fact that the last boy was a liar influence how we treat the next one.
Click to expand...

You are not entirely wrong, MrWonka. The fact that one person fabricated a racist/homophobic attack does not obviate the possibility or our responsibility to respond to other instances of violent bigotry.

However, this case should provide a note of caution, and that note is this: Listen to alleged victims, and wait at least 24 hours to look at the evidence to come in before leaping to conclusions. I do not think that is too much to ask of anyone. Unless you can absolutely vouch for someone's honesty and would be willing to risk everything dear to yourself on the basis of their good word, no one unknown to you deserves your total credulity. Jussie Smollett preyed upon the good will of people who believe victims (or found it politically convenient to believe him), and he made many decent people look like utter fools. Everyone of good conscience should take note.

This is not a call for anyone to become a cynic. This is a note to exercise a modicum of discretion. To wait, if only momentarily, to listen and see the evidence.
 
Felis Leo said:
You are not entirely wrong, MrWonka. The fact that one person fabricated a racist/homophobic attack does not obviate the possibility or our responsibility to respond to other instances of violent bigotry.

However, this case should provide a note of caution, and that note is this: Listen to alleged victims, and wait at least 24 hours to look at the evidence to come in before leaping to conclusions. I do not think that is too much to ask of anyone. Unless you can absolutely vouch for someone's honesty and would be willing to risk everything dear to yourself on the basis of their good word, no one unknown to you deserves your total credulity. Jussie Smollett preyed upon the good will of people who believe victims (or found it politically convenient to believe him), and he made many decent people look like utter fools. Everyone of good conscience should take note.

This is not a call for anyone to become a cynic. This is a note to exercise a modicum of discretion. To wait, if only momentarily, to listen and see the evidence.
Click to expand...

Yep. Healthy degree of skepticism.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yet we can rest assured that the sentence for faking a hate crime will be far less than would have resulted if some poor slobs had been convicted of committing it.
Click to expand...

You're just making an assumption. He has been arrested. It sounds serious.
 
jmotivator said:
Here's the thing... I don't see these false accusations hurting cases of actual rape and assault since, regardless of the truth behind the accusation, because the police will still investigate just as they did with Smollett.

So if the lasting "harm" is that the average person will wait for the facts and not automatically assume the accusation is true then GOOD.

Jussie Smollett's hoax worked because people wanted it to be true, and were predisposed to believing it even without evidence.
Click to expand...

This for the most part, is true. Progressives would rather tarnish Trump and his supporters' reputation at the expense of a political narrative.

When the right says that these people have a victimhood complex, this is especially what they mean.


If Smollett's story is found to be untrue, it will cause irreparable damage to the communities most affected. Smollett would be the first example skeptics cite when they say we should be dubious of victims who step forward to share their experiences of racist hate crimes or sexual violence.

The incident would be touted as proof that there is a leftist conspiracy to cast Trump supporters as violent, murderous racists. It would be the very embodiment of "fake news."

And that reason, more than any other, is why I need this story to be true, despite its ugliness and despite what it would say about the danger of the world I live in. The damage done would be too deep and long-lasting.

This could be one tragedy that the Lyon family — and more importantly, the ordinary people who loved the show and invested in Smollett and his character — could never overcome

Opinion: I doubted 'Empire's' Jussie Smollett. It breaks my heart that I might be right - The Morning Call
Click to expand...
 
SheWolf said:
I think what Jussie did is really awful, but I don't think this is disrespecting the people who were murdered and lynched in American history. Those people were terrorized and the American government did nothing to protect or deliver justice. What Jussie did is in no way worse nor disrespectful to those victims, and they are long dead.

I think that statement is over the top, and wrong on Many levels. And because of the letter, people are talking about terrorism charges, so is Geraldo going to argue next that Jussie disrespects 911?

I watch a lot of true crime, and I have encountered a lot of stories involving hoaxes like this. Crime psychologists say people who commit these type of acts tend to be naracisstic and want to appear victimized to get attention and support. It comes down to attention seeking and wanting sympathy. There are some people who have a history of faking crimes happening to them over and over. They do it constantly.
Click to expand...

I don't see how it isn't disresepcting hate crime victims. Those people actually faced violence from hate crimes, and many even died because of it. He made up a hoax where he claimed a hate crime was being inflicted upon him. Doing that, knowing he made it all up, shows a great amount of disrespect IMHO.
 
TheGoverness said:
I think it shows that we can't take everything at face value, and we have to have a healthy degree of skepticism, especially when it comes to stories that confirm your own biases. I'm not saying to deny any other similar story that comes out in the future. I'm saying to look at it carefully, instead of running with it without looking into it.

That's the rational approach to take.
Click to expand...

There was really nothing to look at more carefully here. The evidence suggested that he was in fact assaulted. The police operated under that assumption as well as they proceeded with the investigation. Until they had a reason to conclude Smollett was lying they gave him the benefit of the doubt and proceeded to look for his assailants based upon the information he gave them. That was the correct course of action.

You can't afford to get irrationally gun shy on these things. Like a Quarterback who threw an interception or a Closer in baseball that blew a save. Or maybe, in this case, a more appropriate analogy would be a referee that blew a whistle on a player because the defender flopped. You have to call it as you see it as best you can.

Even in this case, Smollett seemed to be motivated by the fact that past instances where he was threatened were not taken seriously.
 
MrWonka said:
Sorry, but no. We should not allow one ****ty idiot's lie to have any bearing on what we make of the next accusation. This is the exact type of stupid mentality that makes so many women who have been assaulted or raped not come forward. One ****ty woman makes up a story to get back at her boyfriend, and all of a sudden every single solitary woman who comes forward is attacked and lambasted unless she can produce HD video evidence of the incident.

This idiot's lie has absolutely nothing to do with the next one. Already in the last 48 hours, we have two additional examples of violent right-wing ass clowns trying to carry out a similar act. One **** head stormed into a Latino-owned business looking to beat up a Mexican, another Military member was plotting to mass murder liberals and journalists.

This is not a boy who cried wolf situation. This idiot will go to jail, but when the next boy we send to watch over the sheep yells wolf we should come running and not let the fact that the last boy was a liar influence how we treat the next one.
Click to expand...

This idiot's lie and more importantly the reaction to it has everything to do with every accusation of it's kind. It highlights the importance of the presumption of innocense.

Liberals, yes Liberals, are the first ones to accept the word of one person, sans any evidence as irrefutable fact and that any questioning of that person's word makes one a "nazi, racist, fascist, sexists, homophobe, etc."
 
Hedgology said:
This for the most part, is true. Progressives would rather tarnish Trump and his supporters' reputation at the expense of a political narrative.

When the right says that these people have a victimhood complex, this is especially what they mean.
Click to expand...

I was actually thinking about that particular admission as I wrote that, but couldn't remember who to attribute it to so I left it out.

His fear, if Smollett was lying, was that it would hurt the narrative that Trump supporters were murderous racists.

I don't think that person really understands the depth of depravity he is admitting to.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yet we can rest assured that the sentence for faking a hate crime will be far less than would have resulted in some poor slobs had been convicted of committing it.
Click to expand...

Oh, don't worry. In this case, he falsely accused white men of a crime. Poor slobs generally only get falsely convicted when it's a white person accusing a black man.
 
MrWonka said:
There was really nothing to look at more carefully here. The evidence suggested that he was in fact assaulted. The police operated under that assumption as well as they proceeded with the investigation. Until they had a reason to conclude Smollett was lying they gave him the benefit of the doubt and proceeded to look for his assailants based upon the information he gave them. That was the correct course of action.
Click to expand...

I gave him the benifit of the doubt, too. I gave him a fair shake, even though I had my reservations from the start. Because this story was already pretty over-the-top. I waited for the evidence to come in. But with him turning in redacted phone records to the police, so that they were usless, and his interview on GMA, did not paint him in a favorable light for me. And with the arrest of those two men, who confessed to being paid, that sealed the deal for me.

You can't afford to get irrationally gun shy on these things. Like a Quarterback who threw an interception or a Closer in baseball that blew a save. Or maybe, in this case, a more appropriate analogy would be a referee that blew a whistle on a player because the defender flopped. You have to call it as you see it as best you can.
Click to expand...

What's the point of jumping behind something irrationally, without first waiting for the facts to come in? That's a terrible line of thinking. No, I'm going to stick with the rational approach.

Even in this case, Smollett seemed to be motivated by the fact that past instances where he was threatened were not taken seriously.
Click to expand...

So that justifies concocting a hoax? It doesn't.
 
apdst said:
This idiot's lie and more importantly the reaction to it has everything to do with every accusation of it's kind. It highlights the importance of the presumption of innocence.
Click to expand...

Targetting suspects based entirely upon the testimony of a victim is not remotely similar to convicting someone. The police department themselves began their investigation under the presumption a hate crime was committed as they should have.
 
MrWonka said:
There was really nothing to look at more carefully here. The evidence suggested that he was in fact assaulted. The police operated under that assumption as well as they proceeded with the investigation. Until they had a reason to conclude Smollett was lying they gave him the benefit of the doubt and proceeded to look for his assailants based upon the information he gave them. That was the correct course of action.

You can't afford to get irrationally gun shy on these things. Like a Quarterback who threw an interception or a Closer in baseball that blew a save. Or maybe, in this case, a more appropriate analogy would be a referee that blew a whistle on a player because the defender flopped. You have to call it as you see it as best you can.

Even in this case, Smollett seemed to be motivated by the fact that past instances where he was threatened were not taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Lol !!
Mugshot

IMG_20190221_092418.jpg
 
MrWonka said:
There was really nothing to look at more carefully here. The evidence suggested that he was in fact assaulted. The police operated under that assumption as well as they proceeded with the investigation. Until they had a reason to conclude Smollett was lying they gave him the benefit of the doubt and proceeded to look for his assailants based upon the information he gave them. That was the correct course of action.

You can't afford to get irrationally gun shy on these things. Like a Quarterback who threw an interception or a Closer in baseball that blew a save. Or maybe, in this case, a more appropriate analogy would be a referee that blew a whistle on a player because the defender flopped. You have to call it as you see it as best you can.

Even in this case, Smollett seemed to be motivated by the fact that past instances where he was threatened were not taken seriously.
Click to expand...

The facts are that his story didn't make sense from the beginning.
The facts are that the police looked into his claims and found them to be dubious
and called him back.

The facts then lead the police to the only 2 people who then admitted that they were paid
to stage the attack. (who were black by the way not white.)

LOL your talk of not being able to afford irrationality is funny considering well the whole media spin was irrational from the start.
Smollett is a liar that tried to falsely accuse someone of a crime.

a crime that would have ruined their life forever.

i do believe given the situation it would have qualified for a felony assault charge with the hate crime addition
that would mean add up to 4 more years of prison sentence onto the original crime.

maybe smollett should get a similar sentence that he wanted to impose on someone else?
maybe 2 years in prison should do him good.

what do you think?
 
MrWonka said:
Targetting suspects based entirely upon the testimony of a victim is not remotely similar to convicting someone. The police department themselves began their investigation under the presumption a hate crime was committed as they should have.
Click to expand...

Doing so in order to convict them in the court of public opinion with the intent to ruin their lives (like Leftists wanted do to the CHS kids) is un-American and just plain wrong. Anyone who engages in that behavior is an un-American piece of ****.
 
Hedgology said:
The attacks occurred; that for the most part is true. How the attacks occurred is where the lies are involved.

We don't know what really happened. All we know is that it didn't happen the way some initially thought.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how it happened. The two guys were caught and admitted they were paid to attack him to make it look real.

There is no question it happened, but it was self inflicted.
 
TheGoverness said:
Article Here.



Good. I hope he gets the book thrown at him. I was pretty skeptical of his story to begin with, as it was pretty fantastical from the start. And I was right to be. This guy is a total piece of ****. You did a serious disservice to all LGBT/POC in this country, by cooking up a hoax hate crime. Trying so hard to be a victim. You've just made it that much harder for people that are actually affected by hate crimes, to come out with them. Hopefully this will stand as a caution for anyone who takes these stories at face-value.
Click to expand...
What you say is all fine and good but you kedt out how he also targeted another group with his biogotry and hate. They are owed an apology.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
MrWonka said:
There was really nothing to look at more carefully here. The evidence suggested that he was in fact assaulted. The police operated under that assumption as well as they proceeded with the investigation. Until they had a reason to conclude Smollett was lying they gave him the benefit of the doubt and proceeded to look for his assailants based upon the information he gave them. That was the correct course of action.

You can't afford to get irrationally gun shy on these things. Like a Quarterback who threw an interception or a Closer in baseball that blew a save. Or maybe, in this case, a more appropriate analogy would be a referee that blew a whistle on a player because the defender flopped. You have to call it as you see it as best you can.

Even in this case, Smollett seemed to be motivated by the fact that past instances where he was threatened were not taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Hmm... would the main past instance be the death threat letter that he had sent to himself?
 
Mason66 said:
It doesn't matter how it happened. The two guys were caught and admitted they were paid to attack him to make it look real.

There is no question it happened, but it was self inflicted.
Click to expand...

That's... not really my argument. The point that no attacks occurred is not an accurate statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom