Jussie Smollett: Now What?

[Mountain Man]

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.

While I agree with you, Smollet's story was suspicious from the start. First of all, he claimed he was attacked by Trump supporters in Chicago. Chicago! Second, he claimed that in the midst of being assaulted, he had the presence of mind to spot a security camera and think to himself, "I hope this is being recorded." I recall there being a couple of other details that didn't add up which I've forgotten.

At any rate, certainly the police should have taken it seriously and investigated his complaint, but the rest of us had no obligation to immediately believe him.

[seanD]

While I agree with you, Smollet's story was suspicious from the start. First of all, he claimed he was attacked by Trump supporters in Chicago. Chicago! Second, he claimed that in the midst of being assaulted, he had the presence of mind to spot a security camera and think to himself, "I hope this is being recorded." I recall there being a couple of other details that didn't add up which I've forgotten.

At any rate, certainly the police should have taken it seriously and investigated his complaint, but the rest of us had no obligation to immediately believe him.

Not to mention the political convenience it was to the left. By default, since it happened well into Trump's presidency and the MSM smear campaign had been in full effect, a sensationalized anti-Trump story by the MSM alone should have been enough to be suspicious about it before the facts came to light.

[Gondwanaland]

While I agree with you, Smollet's story was suspicious from the start. First of all, he claimed he was attacked by Trump supporters in Chicago. Chicago! Second, he claimed that in the midst of being assaulted, he had the presence of mind to spot a security camera and think to himself, "I hope this is being recorded." I recall there being a couple of other details that didn't add up which I've forgotten.

At any rate, certainly the police should have taken it seriously and investigated his complaint, but the rest of us had no obligation to immediately believe him.

There was the whole noose around his neck which apparently he decided to keep wearing until he made his way to home, kept it on while calling the police, and continued to wear it until the police actually arrived. That didn't jive with me straight off the bat.

[Gondwanaland]

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.

That would be nice, in an ideal world, but these days with the overwhelming number of hoax 'hate crimes'.... sadly the right course of action might best be that they be automatically met with suspicion.

[CivilDiscourse]

That would be nice, in an ideal world, but these days with the overwhelming number of hoax 'hate crimes'.... sadly the right course of action might best be that they be automatically met with suspicion.

I have to disagree. I would rather have 100 Jussie's be initially trusted than 1 person have their actual crime dismissed because it's initially deemed false. Initially trusted means just that. You start with the assumption that the person is being honest that A. something happened, and B. they believe their interpretation of the events is correct.

To go with a silly example, if someone comes in to the police station and says "I was just attacked by Bigfoot!" Here are the assumptions to initially make.
A. The person was attacked.
B. The person believes that the thing that attacked him was Bigfoot.

This doesn't mean you believe bigfoot exists and made the attack. It doesn't mean you can't think that it was probably a bear, or a wildcat, or some other animal. It just means that you believe the person does think it was bigfoot. You are assuming that the person is telling you the truth, as they believe it.

This also does not mean that you rule out the possibility that the person has staged the whole thing. They could have planted fake footsteps, fake fur, had a video camera in just the right spot, etc.

To go onto a more serious topic.

If a woman goes to the police and says So and So raped her. You make three initial assumptions:
A. There was a sexual encounter.
B. The woman believes it was non-consensual.
C. The woman believes that the other person was So and So.

Now the initial report of rape will make one or more of those initial assumptions more or less likely to be incorrect. But you start from the initial assumption that she's telling the truth as she believes it, and investigate accordingly.

It's from there you investigate the incident, and let the investigation lead where it may. In the first case, you need to investigate to see if there is a dangerous animal that needs to be put down. In the second case, you investigate a rape. If during the course of that investigation, evidence of mistruth comes out, you follow it. You just initially start with the assumption that the person is telling the truth.

I will agree that such things don't need to be broadcast on the news.

[CivilDiscourse]

That would be nice, in an ideal world, but these days with the overwhelming number of hoax 'hate crimes'.... sadly the right course of action might best be that they be automatically met with suspicion.

Also, In the case of Smollett the "grace period" of assumption of truth for the public, IMO, lasted about 2 weeks. The "attack" became public on Jan 30th. On Feb 15th, ABC reported that two 'persons of interest' are, in fact, under arrest, and acknowledge that the pair has "a relationship with" Smollett.

At that point, it's no longer "safe" to simply assume that Smollett was being truthful, and it should now be treated as an open question.

On feb 20th, the charges were filed on filing a false report. After this point, I think the overall evidence is strong enough that most people should be at best silent on public support.

[rogue06]

While I agree with you, Smollet's story was suspicious from the start. First of all, he claimed he was attacked by Trump supporters in Chicago. Chicago! Second, he claimed that in the midst of being assaulted, he had the presence of mind to spot a security camera and think to himself, "I hope this is being recorded." I recall there being a couple of other details that didn't add up which I've forgotten.

At any rate, certainly the police should have taken it seriously and investigated his complaint, but the rest of us had no obligation to immediately believe him.

Not just Chicago but in a very blue portion. And apparently these guys were standing around late at night during the coldest night of the year waiting for him because they somehow knew he would be coming outside.

[Cow Poke]

That would be nice, in an ideal world, but these days with the overwhelming number of hoax 'hate crimes'.... sadly the right course of action might best be that they be automatically met with suspicion.

That'd be like a rape victim wearing the scarf with which her rapist tried to strangle her. You'd throw that off as soon as you could.

[rogue06]

As the trial wraps up Smollett is upset with the prosecutor for using the n-word -- even though the prosecutor was reading from and quoting Instagram private messages from Smollett to one of his Nigerian accomplices.

[Sparko]

As the trial wraps up Smollett is upset with the prosecutor for using the n-word -- even though the prosecutor was reading from and quoting Instagram private messages from Smollett to one of his Nigerian accomplices.

[rogue06]

Smollett testified that CNN's Don Lemon sent him a text warning him that the police were starting to suspect he was lying, thereby opening Lemon up to ethical charges (there's still a pending investigation concerning improper sexual conduct).

With luck Lemon will be joining Cuomo out on the curb.

[Thoughtful Monk]

As the trial wraps up Smollett is upset with the prosecutor for using the n-word -- even though the prosecutor was reading from and quoting Instagram private messages from Smollett to one of his Nigerian accomplices.

Smollett was just virtue signaling.

[seer]

265361391_957923098469293_4002528963476657074_n.jpg

[Gondwanaland]

Smollett testified that CNN's Don Lemon sent him a text warning him that the police were starting to suspect he was lying, thereby opening Lemon up to ethical charges (there's still a pending investigation concerning improper sexual conduct).

With luck Lemon will be joining Cuomo out on the curb.

Did Don have the hots for him, perhaps?

[rogue06]

Did Don have the hots for him, perhaps?

Given that Lemon is gay as well, it is not inconceivable