All Charges Against Jussie Smollett Dropped

[Luminesa]

Same shit, different day -- trying people in the media.

Men are the abusers in any relationship so they are guilty.
People of color are criminals -- guilty.
Muslims are terrorists -- guilty.
Latinos are criminals -- guilty.
Women are whores -- guilty.
Clergy are child molesters -- guilty.
Women are best at parenting so they should be given custody.

Seriously, it's ridiculous. Until trial we don't know what precisely is going to come out. Does it look good? No. But we don't yet have enough to say he's guilty, just as we don't have enough facts to make the above presumptions true in any, let alone the preponderance, of the time.

I mean, due process is due process, but one can sometimes tell if a guy is going to get the book thrown at them before the trial happens. Weinstein is probably going to get the book thrown at him, unless he buys his way out. Smollett will probably get into the same situation, whether or not he buys himself out I couldn't say.

[Luminesa]

Well I mean based off the facts of the case it does look quite likely he is guilty.

Based on the facts as reported, which include the statements of the people he allegedly hired and who were persons of interest in the matter, and Smollett's own statements. Both sides would have a strong motive spin things to avoid punishment, were they guilty of a crime.

This is why we need to wait for trial.

I mean, sure, we do need to wait for a trial, but it's not like we're dumb and we don't know what has come from police reports. It's one thing to hold back whether or not the man is guilty until the judge says so. It's entirely another thing to say nobody can take a guess because for some reason we have no proof. We do have proof, the police found videos and inconsistencies in his story.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Based on the facts as reported, which include the statements of the people he allegedly hired and who were persons of interest in the matter, and Smollett's own statements. Both sides would have a strong motive spin things to avoid punishment, were they guilty of a crime.

This is why we need to wait for trial.

I mean, sure, we do need to wait for a trial, but it's not like we're dumb and we don't know what has come from police reports. It's one thing to hold back whether or not the man is guilty until the judge says so. It's entirely another thing to say nobody can take a guess because for some reason we have no proof. We do have proof, the police found videos and inconsistencies in his story.

This ^^

[Telconi]

Well I mean based off the facts of the case it does look quite likely he is guilty.

Based on the facts as reported, which include the statements of the people he allegedly hired and who were persons of interest in the matter, and Smollett's own statements. Both sides would have a strong motive spin things to avoid punishment, were they guilty of a crime.

This is why we need to wait for trial.

We really don't though, if I were to jump to an opinion, it'd cost Smollett exactly what it's worth.

[Ostroeuropa]

Based on the facts as reported, which include the statements of the people he allegedly hired and who were persons of interest in the matter, and Smollett's own statements. Both sides would have a strong motive spin things to avoid punishment, were they guilty of a crime.

This is why we need to wait for trial.

We really don't though, if I were to jump to an opinion, it'd cost Smollett exactly what it's worth.

This. Smollett also has the opportunity to defend himself in court and change peoples minds.

[Herador]

So when the trial finishes and he's found guilty, then can I call him an asshole?
Just checking.

[Yusseria]

So long buddy.

Given that we live in a world where massive tax fraud and conspiracy against the United States nets you a four year sentence, mail fraud probably won't destroy him.

Nice to see you trying out new talking points.

[Yusseria]

Lock the idiot up.

[Yusseria]

How do you get sixteen felony charges out of one crime?

Looks like they charged him once for each lie.

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/03/08 ... ndictment/

The indictment expands the case against the actor. The counts focus on allegedly false statements he made to two different Chicago Police officers. Each count covers various alleged acts that Smollett falsely described to the officers–including that he was hit by two men, that they yelled racial and homophobic slurs and poured a chemical on him.

That does seem a bit suspicious and over the top to charge a person with each element of a lie in telling an overall false story. But I'm not familiar with the law in this regard.

It's beautiful.

[Yusseria]

This is not a he said she said situation where we're being asked to evaluate what happened based on two contradictory narratives. There is physical evidence which corroborates one narrative.

Point is, there are definitely different reactions in society to people facing charges depending on their race, gender, and socioeconomic situation. Important (rich) white dudesoften are treated with the "innocent until proven guilty" ideal, and people of color, people of lesser means, people who do not identify as cis gendered, and women tend to be treated as if they are guilty until proven innocent. Hell, until recently, clergy were treated as "transferred and never stopped from molesting children" -- they never even had to worry about a trial.

He should be tried. The evidence should be weighed. His conviction or acquittal should be on the merits of the case and evidence and nothing more.

If he's convicted of crying wolf, it's a completely shitty thing to have done for the impact it will have on others who come forward and actually have been abused, and for anyone who might have been wrongfully accused. If he's convicted of concocting this whole hoax, then he should face consequences for it, there is no argument about that. But if we bend over backwards to provide some with the presumption of innocence until conviction, then all should have that same protection.

In fact, I would argue the murder of James Byrd Jr. in 1998 was the most recent lynching for all intents and purposes.

Yes. It is not as buried deeply in the past as people believe.

No one here has advocated for extrajudicial punishment.

And yet much of the discussion is pretty much "he is guilty of this!"

He's charged with it. We'll find out if he's guilty of it.

Imagine actually believing this.

[Proctopeo]

While the full possible extent of all the charges would be... overkill, he definitely deserves more than just a slap on the wrist for this shit.
Regardless of the legal consequences of his actions, his career seems pretty much dead in the water. Kicked out of Empire and with a big ol' negative following his name wherever he goes, he's lucky to get in a commercial.

[Vetalia]

Looking back on this whole fiasco and the recent revelations, I think what disturbs me most about Jussie Smollett is that he's a pure, unadulterated sociopath who is willing to lie and endanger innocent people because he didn't get enough money at work. He is one scary dude who needs to be committed in a mental institution for a long time.

[Vassenor]

To be clear, regarding someone as guilty is separate from saying they should face extrajudicial consequences, which is where people usually take grievance with the progressive left and their mentality on this.

I'm sure if you asked Washington Resistance Army and others whether Smollett should be fired or something before the trial has concluded they would pivot and say no, he is not yet proven guilty.

This is the difference here. When feminists and the progressive left do this kind of thing there is a tendency to demand extrajudicial consequences without trial or defend such consequences on the grounds that "This isn't a court room" and so on, an entirely separate matter from simply regarding the person as guilty.

The attempt to pretend that people are treating Smollett the same way feminists and others routinely treat people that stand accused, and the hand-wringing over "rich white males", is misframing the issue and pretending there is an equivalence which simply isn't there.

Nobody has proposed Smollett face extrajudicial consequences. That is the key thing here, and it is what makes Kat's attempts to allude to some kind of discrepancy in peoples attitudes poorly founded.

Derailing an entirely unrelated thread just to bitch about feminists. How predictable.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

To be clear, regarding someone as guilty is separate from saying they should face extrajudicial consequences, which is where people usually take grievance with the progressive left and their mentality on this.

I'm sure if you asked Washington Resistance Army and others whether Smollett should be fired or something before the trial has concluded they would pivot and say no, he is not yet proven guilty.

This is the difference here. When feminists and the progressive left do this kind of thing there is a tendency to demand extrajudicial consequences without trial or defend such consequences on the grounds that "This isn't a court room" and so on, an entirely separate matter from simply regarding the person as guilty.

The attempt to pretend that people are treating Smollett the same way feminists and others routinely treat people that stand accused, and the hand-wringing over "rich white males", is misframing the issue and pretending there is an equivalence which simply isn't there.

Nobody has proposed Smollett face extrajudicial consequences. That is the key thing here, and it is what makes Kat's attempts to allude to some kind of discrepancy in peoples attitudes poorly founded.

Derailing an entirely unrelated thread just to bitch about feminists. How predictable.

Like you've never bitched about people you don't like.

[Torrocca]

Derailing an entirely unrelated thread just to bitch about feminists. How predictable.

Like you've never bitched about people you don't like.

To be entirely fair to Vass, there's a wide fucking Grand Canyon of a difference between bitching about some group you dislike and making it your personal crusade to shoehorn something (feminism in this case) into any and every possible situation you put yourself into.

[Scomagia]

What an inane post. Do you have anything of value to post or are you just shitposting because you can?

Right back atcha, bucko.

Yeah, that's not an argument. One of us has actually made posts that are valuable to discussion. The other of us is a mod who has shitposted her way into the thread without contributing much of anything.

[Ostroeuropa]

Like you've never bitched about people you don't like.

To be entirely fair to Vass, there's a wide fucking Grand Canyon of a difference between bitching about some group you dislike and making it your personal crusade to shoehorn something (feminism in this case) into any and every possible situation you put yourself into.

A feminist trying to imply Smollett's critics are engaging the same behavior feminists are criticized for and imply a "Both sides are the same" dynamic when there is a difference and having that difference explained to them makes the feminists in the thread cry and call foul rather than acknowledge the point.

Shocker.

Who do you think Vass was referring to exactly when they were whining about "I thought innocent until proven guilty-"?

What, you're sad your dogwhistling was called out for the misleading crap it was? I don't care.

Why bother with a trial? Everyone knows he's guilty! He wouldn't have been charged if he weren't!/sarcasm

"Innocent until proven guilty" is only for rich white males accused of sex crimes.

->

To be clear, regarding someone as guilty is separate from saying they should face extrajudicial consequences, which is where people usually take grievance with the progressive left and their mentality on this.

I'm sure if you asked Washington Resistance Army and others whether Smollett should be fired or something before the trial has concluded they would pivot and say no, he is not yet proven guilty.

This is the difference here. When feminists and the progressive left do this kind of thing there is a tendency to demand extrajudicial consequences without trial or defend such consequences on the grounds that "This isn't a court room" and so on, an entirely separate matter from simply regarding the person as guilty.

The attempt to pretend that people are treating Smollett the same way feminists and others routinely treat people that stand accused, and the hand-wringing over "rich white males", is misframing the issue and pretending there is an equivalence which simply isn't there.

Nobody has proposed Smollett face extrajudicial consequences. That is the key thing here, and it is what makes Kat's attempts to allude to some kind of discrepancy in peoples attitudes poorly founded.

Derailing an entirely unrelated thread just to bitch about feminists. How predictable.

This is your intellectual honesty on feminism. Vass is whining because their argument is shit and projecting their own bullshit on to me so they don't have to deal with it.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Is Jussies Smollett a plural, like courts martial?

[Herador]

Is Jussies Smollett a plural, like courts martial?

One count each for every clone. Can't fool NSG you Illuminati fucks.

[Seythennia]

Is Jussies Smollett a plural, like courts martial?

The Jussies Smollett are a Chicago-based successor of the Knights Templar who participated in the crusades against made-up MAGA hat-wearing attackers.

[Scomagia]

Based on the facts as reported, which include the statements of the people he allegedly hired and who were persons of interest in the matter, and Smollett's own statements. Both sides would have a strong motive spin things to avoid punishment, were they guilty of a crime.

This is why we need to wait for trial.

We really don't though, if I were to jump to an opinion, it'd cost Smollett exactly what it's worth.

Wait, you mean a personal opinion of his guilt isn't the same thing as being denied the legal presumption of innocence?

[Aclion]

So when the trial finishes and he's found guilty, then can I call him an asshole?
Just checking.

No. When trials finished it will be ""old news" and they'll want to know "why you're bringing it up still"

[Ors Might]

From what I’ve seen, Smollet is almost one hundred percent, beyond a shadow of a doubt guilty. But I’m not a prosecuter or a judge. My opinion doesn’t mean shit in regards to his trial.

[Murray land]

I expect he'll be able to plea down to some misdemeanor bullshit, pay restitution, and maybe serve jail time, though I really doubt it.

^^^fact. Also as a side if. I was a Warden I wouldnt want a celebrity who pulled some bs like that on my watch. Cuz then ur gonna have to watch his candy ass extra close so no other inmates try to hurt him.

[Christian Confederation]

I hope he gets the max punishment, falsified allegations are one of the worst non vielant crimes. If we're lucky this will teach people to think twice before going public with false alagations.