Skip to main content

Both.

Speed Read

Who: “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett, two brothers questioned in his attack, the Chicago police and the rapt public following every beat of this strange case as it continues to unravel.

What: Smollett, who is black and gay, reported that he was attacked by two men and claimed his assailants made racial and homophobic slurs, put a rope around his neck, doused him in bleach and referenced “MAGA country” — suggesting they were supporters of President Trump. Law enforcement labeled the attack a hate crime, and celebrities, human rights groups, politicians and fans rallied to support Smollett. Presidential hopefuls Sens. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker called the attack “an attempted modern-day lynching.”

Since those initial reports, things have gotten complicated. Police took two brothers into custody as suspects, then released them amid reports that they claimed the attack was a hoax and that Smollett had hired them to stage the assault. Smollett released statements via lawyers refuting the hoax narrative and maintained that he is the victim. He admitted he knows the brothers, and employed one as a personal trainer, but denied their involvement in the attack.

Where: The alleged assault occurred in the downtown Chicago neighborhood of Streeterville.

When: According to Smollett, the attack occurred around 2 a.m. on Jan. 29. Reports suggesting that it was a hoax began within days, and the full details of the incident are still not known.

Why: Unclear. Early reports suggested Smollett staged the attack because his character was set to be written off “Empire.” Fox Entertainment and 20th Century Fox Television, which produces the show, called those reports “patently ridiculous.”

What’s next: Police say they hope to interview Smollett further to either corroborate or debunk details of the investigation. His spokeswoman said Smollett had no plans for further meetings. Law enforcement officials also revealed that the case could be headed toward a grand jury.

Backlash against the star, his doubters, police and the internet mob is growing. Smollett’s supporters feel betrayed that he may have fabricated the story to boost his career. Critics of the Chicago Police Department’s history of dealing with racially motivated violence are casting doubt on its handling of the case. Cultural critics are warning of the dangers of making snap judgments based on personal bias in the divisive Trump era. And … much more.

Perspectives

If the attack is a hoax — that’s the worst-case scenario.

“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.” — Nana Efua Mumford, Washington Post

Trump supporters are routinely, and unfairly, villainized.

“If the way the Jussie Smollett fiasco was handled by national media is any indication, due process is becoming a foreign concept in a profession in which one is increasingly considered guilty until proven innocent. … The characters change but the story remains the same: If Trump or a Trump supporter is involved in an incident, guilt is assumed. Due process be ****ed.” — Joe Concha, The Hill

It’s dangerous to jump on the outrage bandwagon before all facts are known.

“This case is an object lesson in what happens when people in positions of political and cultural authority abandon critical thinking and pressure those who don’t abandon their circumspection under pain of being smeared as bigots. It also exemplifies the tendency of those arbiters to amplify ‘perfect crimes’ that advance their political agenda — and to ignore crimes that don’t.” — Noah Rothman, New York Times

 

Celebrity “activists” made a bad situation worse.

“Fame is a terrible drug, one that ruins the most promising people who get caught up in it. The cult of celebrity has proven itself once again of derailing the true work of everyday people fighting to survive. It’s high time that we begin to re-focus our attention on their efforts, and not the red carpet draw of those awaiting a close-up for being adjacent to the activism.” — Ernest Owens, Daily Beast

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

How about BOTH, Hate Crime and Hoax. 

Hoax - definitely given all the information out to date.  The reason for the Hoax is what's not fully known as of yet.  I believe he was setting himself up to get a position he applied for just before the hoax played out.  He was setting himself up to say "this is me" I've experienced exactly what the character, in the play I'm auditioning for, is said to experience.  

Hate Crime in that it's a crime to make a false report but his hatred of Donald Trump led to the fabrications of the MAGA aspects of it.  

I will say IF (and I can't make that IF big enough) it were true then the two attackers walking around that part of Chicago (a city that voted, at least, 88% against Trump) , that time of morning, in that weather, were wearing MAGA hats then they have the BIGGEST kahoonies of anyone.  I mean wearing a MAGA hat in better parts of Chicago in the middle of the day is a very bold thing.

Naio posted:

Get a grip.  Is it a hate crime when trump claims the immigrants crossing the border are rapist, thugs, criminals, gang members?  Is it a hate crime to claim democrats are baby killers? 

The trouble is that some, of the immigrants, crossing the border illegally ARE rapist, thugs, and criminals and Gang members and they prove Trump to be correct (about some) so the question then becomes just how many are you willing to allow in?   Some are drug dealers or bringing in drugs.  Not all but certainly some are and as a Nation, of laws, we have to enforce those laws and also enforce the borders but many Democrats have openly advocated to abolish the very agency that enforces the border and are advocating letting all in.  Our Nation, nor has any other nation, ever done that and had no restrictions upon entry and remained a valid Nation.  That's why we have laws and immigration processes in order to be much more selective about who gets to come in.  Just what do you believe we should do?  Allow everyone that wants to come in to do so?  Where do you draw the line?  

As for the statement about "Baby Killers", not all Democrats, or even a majority, are but there are many Democrats that are openly for laws and acts which allow the murder of infants within the 3rd trimester and even up to Birth and that's a demonstrated fact and is even celebrated by lawmakers of New York.  What would you call someone that kills a child/infant that is able to survive on it's own outside the mother's womb?  If not a "Baby Killer" then what?

It isn't hate crimes to want to enforce the border of our nation nor for any Nation to seek to protect it's own interest and the interest of it's citizens.  I believe it is and should be a crime to kill the most innocent among us and while science may have difficulty determining the exact point where life can be determined as viable and self surviving there are laws that some Democrats are seeking that surely allow the termination of the innocent life of infants or children that are certainly able to survive on their own.  To deny that point is either gross ignorance or willful deception, in my opinion mind you.  I don't like any abortion that's used for any reason other than direct threat of live to the mother but I know there are circumstances that do apply and that the parents and physicians alone are able to make those decisions.  I am solidly opposed to the use of abortion for birth control or as a matter of convenience.  In cases of rape or incest those are the hardest and toughest and should be made by the family and persons involved as well as physicians but those are decisions that could be made early on and certainly before the third trimester.  At least that's my opinion and I realize everyone has opinions on the matter at all levels or times of the conception/birth process.  

Felony criminal charges against Jussie Smollett approved, Chicago police say

Authorities in Chicago on Wednesday approved felony criminal charges against "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett, hours after he was "officially classified as a suspect in a criminal investigation" for allegedly "filing a false police report" in connection with his Jan. 29 attack claims, police said.

https://www.foxnews.com/entert...s-chicago-police-say

gbrk posted:
Naio posted:

Get a grip.  Is it a hate crime when trump claims the immigrants crossing the border are rapist, thugs, criminals, gang members?  Is it a hate crime to claim democrats are baby killers? 

 

It isn't hate crimes to want to enforce the border of our nation nor for any Nation to seek to protect it's own interest and the interest of it's citizens.  I believe it is and should be a crime to kill the most innocent among us and while science may have difficulty determining the exact point where life can be determined as viable and self surviving there are laws that some Democrats are seeking that surely allow the termination of the innocent life of infants or children that are certainly able to survive on their own.  To deny that point is either gross ignorance or willful deception, in my opinion mind you.  I don't like any abortion that's used for any reason other than direct threat of live to the mother but I know there are circumstances that do apply and that the parents and physicians alone are able to make those decisions.  I am solidly opposed to the use of abortion for birth control or as a matter of convenience.  In cases of rape or incest those are the hardest and toughest and should be made by the family and persons involved as well as physicians but those are decisions that could be made early on and certainly before the third trimester.  At least that's my opinion and I realize everyone has opinions on the matter at all levels or times of the conception/birth process.  

I've said the same thing several times on this forum. 

Last edited by Naio
gbrk posted:
Naio posted:

Get a grip.  Is it a hate crime when trump claims the immigrants crossing the border are rapist, thugs, criminals, gang members?  Is it a hate crime to claim democrats are baby killers? 

 

As for the statement about "Baby Killers", not all Democrats, or even a majority, are but there are many Democrats that are openly for laws and acts which allow the murder of infants within the 3rd trimester and even up to Birth and that's a demonstrated fact and is even celebrated by lawmakers of New York.  What would you call someone that kills a child/infant that is able to survive on it's own outside the mother's womb?  If not a "Baby Killer" then what?

 

What percentage of women, do you think, are making a conscious decision to wait until the 3rd trimester to have an abortion?

gbrk posted:
Naio posted:

Get a grip.  Is it a hate crime when trump claims the immigrants crossing the border are rapist, thugs, criminals, gang members?  Is it a hate crime to claim democrats are baby killers? 

The trouble is that some, of the immigrants, crossing the border illegally ARE rapist, thugs, and criminals and Gang members and they prove Trump to be correct (about some) so the question then becomes just how many are you willing to allow in?   Some are drug dealers or bringing in drugs.  Not all but certainly some are and as a Nation, of laws, we have to enforce those laws and also enforce the borders but many Democrats have openly advocated to abolish the very agency that enforces the border and are advocating letting all in.  Our Nation, nor has any other nation, ever done that and had no restrictions upon entry and remained a valid Nation.  That's why we have laws and immigration processes in order to be much more selective about who gets to come in.  Just what do you believe we should do?  Allow everyone that wants to come in to do so?  Where do you draw the line?  

 

Do you think it's feasible to forcibly deport the millions of illegal immigrants in this country?  That in itself would turn into a humanitarian crises like we've never seen in this country. The funny thing is, the gop turned a blind eye to illegal immigration for a long time because Hispanics are mostly christian/catholics.  But now it's "the democrats only want them in the country for votes."  See how it works?

El chapo, for example, had a network of tunnels to smuggle drugs into the country. Drug cartels aren't careless enough to let random knuckleheads walk drugs across the border.  And most drugs come into the country through ports of entry.

We have laws. We have an asylum process. Let the process work. That's how we remain a valid Nation.

Jack Hammer posted:
It's a hate crime alright, I just can't see why he would think it could help 
his cause. Keeping the rope around his neck was just one of many mistakes
obvious to the police.

It's not a hate crime.  There were rumors he was going to be written of Empire. Put two and two together....

Naio posted:
gbrk posted:
Naio posted:

Get a grip.  Is it a hate crime when trump claims the immigrants crossing the border are rapist, thugs, criminals, gang members?  Is it a hate crime to claim democrats are baby killers? 

 

As for the statement about "Baby Killers", not all Democrats, or even a majority, are but there are many Democrats that are openly for laws and acts which allow the murder of infants within the 3rd trimester and even up to Birth and that's a demonstrated fact and is even celebrated by lawmakers of New York.  What would you call someone that kills a child/infant that is able to survive on it's own outside the mother's womb?  If not a "Baby Killer" then what?

 

What percentage of women, do you think, are making a conscious decision to wait until the 3rd trimester to have an abortion?

No Idea.  I would assume it varies depending on the states involved.  From what I have heard though the majority of abortions tend to happen within the minority population.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×