Jussie Smollett: Now What?

[seer]

Nothing to see here...

Police Arrest Transgender Woman In Bronx Pepper Spray Attack, Links To More Hate Crimes Being Investigated

.

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/03...-spray-attack/

[Cow Poke]

[Sparko]

picking the jury today

[Cow Poke]

And let's not forget...

Flashback: Kamala Harris once called Jussie Smollett's claims of an attack an 'attempted modern day lynching'

[CivilDiscourse]

And let's not forget...

Flashback: Kamala Harris once called Jussie Smollett's claims of an attack an 'attempted modern day lynching'

I don't hold it against anyone who initially supported Jussie when he first made his police report. It is absolutely not unreasonable to assume that the person making a report is acting in good faith and is telling the truth as they understand the circumstances from their point of view. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is imperative that this assumption of good faith hold until the facts start to suggest otherwise. This does not mean that you assume that their interpretation of events is necessarily accurate, but that they do believe that they are being truthful in their reporting as to their beliefs.

This is true even in the case of Jussie. He reported to police he was attacked. Your baseline assumption should be that he was attacked. Anybody supporting him during this initial grace period is not doing anything wrong at this point. However, once the facts start becoming clear that his story didn't add up, those who continue to support him should be taking a hard long look at themselves.

[Cow Poke]

I don't hold it against anyone who initially supported Jussie when he first made his police report. It is absolutely not unreasonable to assume that the person making a report is acting in good faith and is telling the truth as they understand the circumstances from their point of view. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is imperative that this assumption of good faith hold until the facts start to suggest otherwise. This does not mean that you assume that their interpretation of events is necessarily accurate, but that they do believe that they are being truthful in their reporting as to their beliefs.

This is true even in the case of Jussie. He reported to police he was attacked. Your baseline assumption should be that he was attacked. Anybody supporting him during this initial grace period is not doing anything wrong at this point. However, once the facts start becoming clear that his story didn't add up, those who continue to support him should be taking a hard long look at themselves.

Yeah, but she wasn't just "anyone" - she was a California Senator at the time.

BUT, yeah, you make some good points.

[seanD]

I don't hold it against anyone who initially supported Jussie when he first made his police report. It is absolutely not unreasonable to assume that the person making a report is acting in good faith and is telling the truth as they understand the circumstances from their point of view. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is imperative that this assumption of good faith hold until the facts start to suggest otherwise. This does not mean that you assume that their interpretation of events is necessarily accurate, but that they do believe that they are being truthful in their reporting as to their beliefs.

This is true even in the case of Jussie. He reported to police he was attacked. Your baseline assumption should be that he was attacked. Anybody supporting him during this initial grace period is not doing anything wrong at this point. However, once the facts start becoming clear that his story didn't add up, those who continue to support him should be taking a hard long look at themselves.

I might agree if it wasn't a pattern with her spreading misinformation (like most on the political left), like what she said about the Rittenhouse verdict. So either she's completely clueless and just blindly spouting out misinformation about subjects she knows nothing about that are consequential to all the racial animosity in our country, or she's intentionally spouting out misinformation because she wants the racial animosity to get worse. If it's the former, as a person who has great influence on these matters, she should keep her piehole shut until she gets more information about it.

[Cow Poke]

I might agree if it wasn't a pattern with her spreading misinformation (like most on the political left), like what she said about the Rittenhouse verdict. So either she's completely clueless and just blindly spouting out misinformation about subjects she knows nothing about that are consequential to all the racial animosity in our country, or she's intentionally spouting out misinformation because she wants the racial animosity to get worse. If it's the former, as a person who has great influence on these matters, she should keep her piehole shut until she gets more information about it.

Yeah, and...

Flashback: Kamala Harris said she believed women who accused Biden of inappropriate touching

She has a tendency to say things that come back to bite her in the butt.

[tabibito]

Nothing to see here...

Police Arrest Transgender Woman In Bronx Pepper Spray Attack, Links To More Hate Crimes Being Investigated

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) Police on Saturday arrested a transgender woman they say attacked a white couple in the Bronx and may be behind a series of attacks in upper Manhattan as well.

Investigators say the transgender suspect, who is black, confronted a couple on E. 187th Street near Crotona Avenue in the Bronx. The attacker allegedly approached the couple and asked the woman if she was white before pepper spraying her.

The couple was too afraid to show their faces on camera, but tearfully described what happened in an exclusive interview with CBS2.

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/03...-spray-attack/

Harris' comment referred to in CP's citation seems appropriate -

Kamala Harris - "No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate."

Does that apply in the circumstances described here?

[seanD]

Yeah, and...

Flashback: Kamala Harris said she believed women who accused Biden of inappropriate touching

She has a tendency to say things that come back to bite her in the butt.

Only they don't bite her in the butt because the left is living in an alternate reality, where truth is a lie and lies are truth, and that's who she's catering to. So she doesn't care if it's misinformation.

[CivilDiscourse]

Yeah, but she wasn't just "anyone" - she was a California Senator at the time.

BUT, yeah, you make some good points.

I don't think that's really important. I would rather that initial reports be met with support than suspicion. I do believe you can make a case that it's better to say nothing at all.

I think it would be much more dangerous to assume the person making the report is lying, than to assume that they are telling the truth.

[Cow Poke]

I don't think that's really important. I would rather that initial reports be met with support than suspicion. I do believe you can make a case that it's better to say nothing at all.

I think it would be much more dangerous to assume the person making the report is lying, than to assume that they are telling the truth.

I think it's wise for public officials and high profile individuals to say nothing at all until the facts are in.
More so in a case like Rittenhouse than a case like Smollett, though.

[seanD]

I don't think that's really important. I would rather that initial reports be met with support than suspicion. I do believe you can make a case that it's better to say nothing at all.

I think it would be much more dangerous to assume the person making the report is lying, than to assume that they are telling the truth.

Maybe it doesn't matter to her if she knows it's a lie or not. She's an opportunist, and will spout out misinformation she believes is politically convenient, whether or not she knows it's a lie is inconsequential to her, which is just as bad as lying.

[CivilDiscourse]

I think it's wise for public officials and high profile individuals to say nothing at all until the facts are in.
More so in a case like Rittenhouse than a case like Smollett, though.

I can agree with that. And you are right, the Rittenhouse case is entirely different than Smollett. Smollett was a report of an unseen attack to the police. Rittenhouse was a case of someone shooting multiple people, while claiming self defense. In one, it was entirely relevant on one person's word and evidence from the investigation that followed. The other was based on the interpretation of evidence as recorded from multiple angles.

[seanD]

I can agree with that. And you are right, the Rittenhouse case is entirely different than Smollett. Smollett was a report of an unseen attack to the police. Rittenhouse was a case of someone shooting multiple people, while claiming self defense. In one, it was entirely relevant on one person's word and evidence from the investigation that followed. The other was based on the interpretation of evidence as recorded from multiple angles.

She made those misleading statements about the Rittenhouse trial after the verdict about the verdict, so we can safely assume she's knowingly being misleading, not just stoking the flames of racial divide, but actually shattering faith in our legal system.

Unless, of course, she's existing in the alternate reality that the political left has existed on this subject, thus we're in trouble, being that she's the second most powerful person in the world.