Jussie Smollet - Horrible Hate Crime or Horrible Case of TDS?

[dismal]

Also a plea deal means he acknowledges wrong doing. He seems unwilling to do that.

Well, we wouldn't want to inconvenience him.

 

[Toni]

Also a plea deal means he acknowledges wrong doing. He seems unwilling to do that.

Well, we wouldn't want to inconvenience him.

In this country, we cannot compel someone to admit to committing a crime.

He seems to believe that he was attacked and insists that his story has been truthful and consistent. So, either we along with the police are completely wrong about what happened and he was genuinely attacked OR he's lying and refusing to move off his story or he genuinely believes what he is saying but he is suffering from delusions. I would guess that the last is closest to the truth. But it's only a guess. I don't know this person; I'm aware of the television show he was on but had no idea he was on it until this happened. I have no dog in this fight in any way.

 

[just_me]

The public either has or will judge him and will most likely be his ultimate judge. The authorities may be able to take money or time away from him, but the public can blot out his existence as far as TV and screen.

 

[ZiprHead]

Have the list of those sixteen charges ever been released?

 

[just_me]

Have the list of those sixteen charges ever been released?

I've heard that the police have released all they have on their investigation. I don't know if that was legal but it doesn't sound ethical.

 

[dismal]

Also a plea deal means he acknowledges wrong doing. He seems unwilling to do that.

Well, we wouldn't want to inconvenience him.

In this country, we cannot compel someone to admit to committing a crime.

No but we tend to convict people when there is overwhelming evidence they have committed a serious crime. Even when they say they didn’t do it.

He seems to believe that he was attacked and insists that his story has been truthful and consistent. So, either we along with the police are completely wrong about what happened and he was genuinely attacked OR he's lying and refusing to move off his story or he genuinely believes what he is saying but he is suffering from delusions. I would guess that the last is closest to the truth. But it's only a guess. I don't know this person; I'm aware of the television show he was on but had no idea he was on it until this happened. I have no dog in this fight in any way.

He says it not equal he believes it. You’d have to be an idiot to believe he was attacked at this point. Why are you defending his behavior? Seriously, why? Why would you want to encourage fake hate crimes? Who benefits from them?

 

[Toni]

In this country, we cannot compel someone to admit to committing a crime.

No but we tend to convict people when there is overwhelming evidence they have committed a serious crime. Even when they say they didn’t do it.

Right but there must be a trial before there is a conviction. The prosecutors decided not to prosecute. Whether we agree or or not, whether we like it or not, that’s what was decided.

He seems to believe that he was attacked and insists that his story has been truthful and consistent. So, either we along with the police are completely wrong about what happened and he was genuinely attacked OR he's lying and refusing to move off his story or he genuinely believes what he is saying but he is suffering from delusions. I would guess that the last is closest to the truth. But it's only a guess. I don't know this person; I'm aware of the television show he was on but had no idea he was on it until this happened. I have no dog in this fight in any way.

He says it not equal he believes it. You’d have to be an idiot to believe he was attacked at this point. Why are you defending his behavior? Seriously, why? Why would you want to encourage fake hate crimes? Who benefits from them?

I’m not defending his behavior.

I think that the most likely scenario is that he is suffering from a serious mental illness and the prosecutors office decided that they were better off using their resources to prosecute cases they felt more certain they could win ( hard to sear a goo jury in this case so big risk of expensive appeals) and not on providing care for a person who has obvious serious mental health issues. They cut their losses, in other words.

Or that’s my best guess.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well, if Fox (one "x") wasn't somehow behind this debacle, then this makes absolutely no sense: McAuliffe Files Legislation Prohibiting Film Tax Credit For Employers of Jussie Smollett:

Illinois and the City of Chicago have become premier destinations for movie and TV show productions. To maintain the thriving film industry and encourage growth in the entertainment sector, Illinois offers a significant 30% Film Tax Credit. An additional bonus of 15% is available on labor expenditures in high-poverty areas, and requires a diversity plan for production hiring. Under Rep. McAuliffe’s legislation, any movie or TV production that employs the actor would forfeit that credit or any other credits administered by the Illinois Department of Revenue or the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity.

“Where the City of Chicago is concerned, Jussie Smollett is far from exonerated,” Rep. McAullife continued. “While the State’s Attorney has chosen not to pursue justice in this case, we need to send a message that Smollett’s actions are not a reflection of the values we have in Chicago and won’t be tolerated. His accusations and lies caused a lot of pain to all Chicagoans.”

Unless there is some other producer--perhaps of a film he was going to star in--that bribed the prosecutor and this is aimed at that production, this can only be directed at the Fox Network.

ETA: And there is every indication (two days ago at least), that the producers of Empire are "eager" to "put all of this behind" and "move forward": Empire writers and Fox stand by Jussie Smollett after charges are dropped.

So, if McAuliffe is just acting out of spite at wanting to hurt Smollett, or something (and not because there was something going on between Fox and Foxx that he can't reference due to the court seal), he's just opened the State of Chicago to a massive lawsuit from both Fox and Smollett.

This just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

 

[Toni]

Right but there must be a trial before there is a conviction. The prosecutors decided not to prosecute. Whether we agree or or not, whether we like it or not, that’s what was decided.

He seems to believe that he was attacked and insists that his story has been truthful and consistent. So, either we along with the police are completely wrong about what happened and he was genuinely attacked OR he's lying and refusing to move off his story or he genuinely believes what he is saying but he is suffering from delusions. I would guess that the last is closest to the truth. But it's only a guess. I don't know this person; I'm aware of the television show he was on but had no idea he was on it until this happened. I have no dog in this fight in any way.

He says it not equal he believes it. You’d have to be an idiot to believe he was attacked at this point. Why are you defending his behavior? Seriously, why? Why would you want to encourage fake hate crimes? Who benefits from them?

I’m not defending his behavior.

I think that the most likely scenario is that he is suffering from a serious mental illness and the prosecutors office decided that they were better off using their resources to prosecute cases they felt more certain they could win ( hard to sear a goo jury in this case so big risk of expensive appeals) and not on providing care for a person who has obvious serious mental health issues. They cut their losses, in other words.

Or that’s my best guess.

* hard to seat a good jury. Sorry. I was on my phone when I posted and didn't catch the typos.

 

[dismal]

Right but there must be a trial before there is a conviction. The prosecutors decided not to prosecute. Whether we agree or or not, whether we like it or not, that’s what was decided.

He seems to believe that he was attacked and insists that his story has been truthful and consistent. So, either we along with the police are completely wrong about what happened and he was genuinely attacked OR he's lying and refusing to move off his story or he genuinely believes what he is saying but he is suffering from delusions. I would guess that the last is closest to the truth. But it's only a guess. I don't know this person; I'm aware of the television show he was on but had no idea he was on it until this happened. I have no dog in this fight in any way.

He says it not equal he believes it. You’d have to be an idiot to believe he was attacked at this point. Why are you defending his behavior? Seriously, why? Why would you want to encourage fake hate crimes? Who benefits from them?

I’m not defending his behavior.

I think that the most likely scenario is that he is suffering from a serious mental illness and the prosecutors office decided that they were better off using their resources to prosecute cases they felt more certain they could win ( hard to sear a goo jury in this case so big risk of expensive appeals) and not on providing care for a person who has obvious serious mental health issues. They cut their losses, in other words.

Or that’s my best guess.

This appears to be a bunch of idle speculation that is not even consistent with the statements the prosecutors have made. It’s like you’re working overtime to defend the indefensible.

 

[Politesse]

I'm not sure why everyone thinks they are absolutely certain what happened; to my eyes, both the original accusation and the counter-accusation look rather dubious and inconsistent in their details.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not sure why everyone thinks they are absolutely certain what happened; to my eyes, both the original accusation and the counter-accusation look rather dubious and inconsistent in their details.

Don't they have video camera evidence showing Smollet directing the staged attack prior to the attack?

 

[TSwizzle]

I think that the most likely scenario is that he is suffering from a serious mental illness and the prosecutors office decided that they were better off using their resources to prosecute cases they felt more certain they could win ( hard to sear a goo jury in this case so big risk of expensive appeals) and not on providing care for a person who has obvious serious mental health issues. They cut their losses, in other words.

Another scenario is that Smollett didn't arrange to have the brothers attack him. The brothers attacked him for some reason, Smollett was owe them money, had dissed them in some way, whatever. Smollett knew who attacked him but rather than report it the way it went down, in the heat of the moment figured out a way to turn the event to his advantage and make up a story that makes things sensational. He never figured that the brothers would be questioned and it all starts to unravel from there. In order to protect themselves, the brothers make up a story about how they were drafted in to carry out the attack. But are these dimwits capable of premeditating buying MAGA hats etc, well, maybe.

 

[Toni]

Right but there must be a trial before there is a conviction. The prosecutors decided not to prosecute. Whether we agree or or not, whether we like it or not, that’s what was decided.



I’m not defending his behavior.

I think that the most likely scenario is that he is suffering from a serious mental illness and the prosecutors office decided that they were better off using their resources to prosecute cases they felt more certain they could win ( hard to sear a goo jury in this case so big risk of expensive appeals) and not on providing care for a person who has obvious serious mental health issues. They cut their losses, in other words.

Or that’s my best guess.

This appears to be a bunch of idle speculation that is not even consistent with the statements the prosecutors have made. It’s like you’re working overtime to defend the indefensible.

I said it was my guess. I also heard an interview on NPR which detailed that a plea deal is inappropriate and actually impossible if the accused is unwilling to accept some degree of guilt/admit wrong doing. To me, it seemed as though hey were making the best, most appropriate choice given the circumstances.

Sorry if I didn’t say something nasty enough about the black gay guy for you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think that the most likely scenario is that he is suffering from a serious mental illness and the prosecutors office decided that they were better off using their resources to prosecute cases they felt more certain they could win ( hard to sear a goo jury in this case so big risk of expensive appeals) and not on providing care for a person who has obvious serious mental health issues. They cut their losses, in other words.

Another scenario is that Smollett didn't arrange to have the brothers attack him. The brothers attacked him for some reason, Smollett was owe them money, had dissed them in some way, whatever. Smollett knew who attacked him but rather than report it the way it went down, in the heat of the moment figured out a way to turn the event to his advantage and make up a story that makes things sensational.

Except he wasn't really bruised up in the attack.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'm not sure why everyone thinks they are absolutely certain what happened

Who here has stated they are "absolutely certain" they know what happened?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This appears to be a bunch of idle speculation

No shit. Welcome to Talk Freethought.

It’s like you’re working overtime to defend the indefensible.

It's like you're working overtime to attack the person, not the argument.

 

[TSwizzle]

I think that the most likely scenario is that he is suffering from a serious mental illness and the prosecutors office decided that they were better off using their resources to prosecute cases they felt more certain they could win ( hard to sear a goo jury in this case so big risk of expensive appeals) and not on providing care for a person who has obvious serious mental health issues. They cut their losses, in other words.

Another scenario is that Smollett didn't arrange to have the brothers attack him. The brothers attacked him for some reason, Smollett was owe them money, had dissed them in some way, whatever. Smollett knew who attacked him but rather than report it the way it went down, in the heat of the moment figured out a way to turn the event to his advantage and make up a story that makes things sensational.

Except he wasn't really bruised up in the attack.

I don't think that is important. It could have been a simple verbal confrontation, a slap or something. Enough to get his adrenaline and imagination going to create something out of nothing.

 

[Politesse]

I'm not sure why everyone thinks they are absolutely certain what happened; to my eyes, both the original accusation and the counter-accusation look rather dubious and inconsistent in their details.

Don't they have video camera evidence showing Smollet directing the staged attack prior to the attack?

Not exactly. They have a lot of videos of the three guys in question, meeting and interacting at various points, and not of the incident itself.

Smollett's story is not consistent with the facts. But the would-be executors of the plan, if they exist, are not exactly coming out of this clean as a whistle, nor does their story sound entirely credible. If the stories had broken in the opposite order, people would be justifiably skeptical upon hearing that two guys jumped someone and produced a check as proof that they had permission to do so, until they heard Smollett's version and decided it sounded fishy too.

Anyone who knows anything about the history of the Chicago PD, knows that their "certainty" that something happened is not necessarily evidence of wrongdoing.

 

[ronburgundy]

Except he wasn't really bruised up in the attack.

I don't think that is important. It could have been a simple verbal confrontation, a slap or something. Enough to get his adrenaline and imagination going to create something out of nothing.

So then he ran out and bought rope and bleach at 2am?

No, there is only one plausible explanation for the known facts and that is what he was charged with and indicted for by a Grand Jury. Even now, the prosecutors who dropped the case still say the evidence was sound and they think he did it. They made it clear that dropping the case had nothing to do with guilt or the likelihood of getting a conviction. Had they known additional facts they thought would make it hard to prosecute, they would have said so and avoided most of the backlash, rather than give their lame excuses about him donating his bail to the city, being a "good citizen", and non-violent crimes being something that should not be prosecuted.