horrifying attack on Jussie Smollett

Status
Not open for further replies.
LTC8K6 said:
TMZ reporting that the FBI has not reached a conclusion about the origin of the letter.

That would mean CPD spoke way too soon...
Click to expand...

My guess is that everyone knows the origin of the letter, but proving it is another matter entirely.
 
That attorney Kim Foxx back in the news to take down singer R. Kelly. Entertainers in Chicago are popular with the police. But let's not go derail on this...

Rafer Weigel said:
SA Kim Foxx listing charges against #RKelly 4 indictments, 10 counts of criminal sexual abuse against 4 victims all under the age of 17. Warrant out for Kelly’s arrest.
Click to expand...


https://mobile.twitter.com/RaferWeigel/status/1099041275389472768
 
shuttlt said:
I realise this is now not the main theory, but I didn't see it properly responded to. If you read the bill, it redefines the meaning of the word lynching.

"If 2 or more persons willfully cause bodily injury to any other person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person"


“(A) IN GENERAL.—If 2 or more persons, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully cause bodily injury to any other person because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person—

So, in this lynching law any time 2 or more people cause bodily injury to somebody in a protected class, for reasons of their class, that would be a lynching. If the townsfolk believed a child murderer was held by the police, broke into the police station to get their hands him, and hanged him from a lamppost, that would not be the sort of lynching that would be counted. If a crowd of antifa attack a jewish man, or some marines, because they mistake them for nazis.... that would not be a lynching in the sense of this law. If a couple of drunks throw a bottle at a transsexual, that could well be a lynching.

If I had to bet, I'd say that at least part of the intention is to create a situation where an inflated number of lynchings are recorded, skewed heavily in favour of straight white men as the aggressors. It's the privileged plus power redefinition of lynching.
Click to expand...

Although I think it was just political opportunism, when Harris and Booker jumped in with both feet and declared this "an attempted modern lynching" and even said that it was a reason why this legislation needed to be passed, I think they tied the fate of the bill to the fate of Jussie Smollett, at least for now.
@JussieSmollett is among the kindest, most gentle humans I understand. I’m hoping for his fast recovery.

This was an attempted modern lynching. No one must need to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must face this hate.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) January 29, 2019
The vicious attack on actor Jussie Smollett was a tried modern-day lynching. I’m delighted he’s safe.

To those in Congress who don’t feel the seriousness to pass our Anti-Lynching bill designating lynching as a federal hate crime– I urge you to focus. https://t.co/EwXFxl5f2m

— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) January 29, 2019
Click to expand...

Now if either of them try to talk about this lynching bill again, it will just remind people about what they said about Smollett. So I think this topic will be quietly dropped for now, although it may come up again in the future once the memory isn't so fresh.

But no, if anyone thinks "some politician put him up to this", I don't think so. Politicians are just opportunists. If they see something in the news that fits their narrative, they'll try to exploit it. Like Trump exploits it if an illegal immigrant murders an American.
 
William Parcher said:
We don't know anything about what happens on set with Smollett. Maybe he needs extra takes when others don't, but he still delivers. We don't know. Maybe the problems happen if he shows up sober (not under the influence). Maybe he's a high-functioning coke or heroin addict.

Maybe his addiction didn't contribute to this crime but still he mentions having an addiction and that is true.
Click to expand...
So far, (correct me if I'm wrong) , the only drug info we have heard is him trying to score molly, which as you say would point to recreational use rather than addiction. Also looking at his face he doesn't appear to be an opiate addict.



I thought he really screwed up when he addressed the cast and lied to them, telling them he is innocent. he would have had a better chance getting into their good graces confessing and asking forgiveness, as it stands he is insulting their intelligence.
 
Marcus said:
I thought he really screwed up when he addressed the cast and lied to them, telling them he is innocent. he would have had a better chance getting into their good graces confessing and asking forgiveness, as it stands he is insulting their intelligence.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, a public admission of guilt while he's out on bail would pretty much nuke his defense in court.
 
shuttlt said:
I realise this is now not the main theory, but I didn't see it properly responded to. If you read the bill, it redefines the meaning of the word lynching.

"If 2 or more persons willfully cause bodily injury to any other person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person"


“(A) IN GENERAL.—If 2 or more persons, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully cause bodily injury to any other person because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person—

So, in this lynching law any time 2 or more people cause bodily injury to somebody in a protected class, for reasons of their class, that would be a lynching. If the townsfolk believed a child murderer was held by the police, broke into the police station to get their hands him, and hanged him from a lamppost, that would not be the sort of lynching that would be counted. If a crowd of antifa attack a jewish man, or some marines, because they mistake them for nazis.... that would not be a lynching in the sense of this law. If a couple of drunks throw a bottle at a transsexual, that could well be a lynching.

If I had to bet, I'd say that at least part of the intention is to create a situation where an inflated number of lynchings are recorded, skewed heavily in favour of straight white men as the aggressors. It's the privileged plus power redefinition of lynching.
Click to expand...

wow
 
LTC8K6 said:
TMZ reporting that the FBI has not reached a conclusion about the origin of the letter.

That would mean CPD spoke way too soon...
Click to expand...
Hmmmm. TMZ is talking about Smollett writing the letter. It could be that the evidence is not showing Smollett as the writer and instead is showing a brother as the writer.

I was surprised about what I read yesterday because it said Jussie wrote the letter and I was expecting it to have been written by a brother.

FBI is not obligated to correct errors made by others in the course of reporting.
 
theprestige said:
On the other hand, a public admission of guilt while he's out on bail would pretty much nuke his defense in court.
Click to expand...
Do you think he has a chance in court? It should be entertaining seeing him trying to explain away the evidence.
 
Puppycow said:
Although I think it was just political opportunism, when Harris and Booker jumped in with both feet and declared this "an attempted modern lynching" and even said that it was a reason why this legislation needed to be passed, I think they tied the fate of the bill to the fate of Jussie Smollett, at least for now.


Now if either of them try to talk about this lynching bill again, it will just remind people about what they said about Smollett. So I think this topic will be quietly dropped for now, although it may come up again in the future once the memory isn't so fresh.

But no, if anyone thinks "some politician put him up to this", I don't think so. Politicians are just opportunists. If they see something in the news that fits their narrative, they'll try to exploit it. Like Trump exploits it if an illegal immigrant murders an American.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the lynching bill already passed
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
Pretty sure the lynching bill already passed
Click to expand...

It appears that you are right.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46634184

However, now I'm trying to understand what Cory Booker meant in his tweet.

To those in Congress who don’t feel the seriousness to pass our Anti-Lynching bill designating lynching as a federal hate crime– I urge you to focus. https://t.co/EwXFxl5f2m

— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) January 29, 2019
Click to expand...

The anti-lynching bill had already passed, unanimously, in the senate, the previous month. Literally all 100 senators voted for it.
 
shuttlt said:
I realise this is now not the main theory, but I didn't see it properly responded to. If you read the bill, it redefines the meaning of the word lynching.

"If 2 or more persons willfully cause bodily injury to any other person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person"


“(A) IN GENERAL.—If 2 or more persons, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully cause bodily injury to any other person because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person—

So, in this lynching law any time 2 or more people cause bodily injury to somebody in a protected class, for reasons of their class, that would be a lynching. If the townsfolk believed a child murderer was held by the police, broke into the police station to get their hands him, and hanged him from a lamppost, that would not be the sort of lynching that would be counted. If a crowd of antifa attack a jewish man, or some marines, because they mistake them for nazis.... that would not be a lynching in the sense of this law. If a couple of drunks throw a bottle at a transsexual, that could well be a lynching.

If I had to bet, I'd say that at least part of the intention is to create a situation where an inflated number of lynchings are recorded, skewed heavily in favour of straight white men as the aggressors. It's the privileged plus power redefinition of lynching.
Click to expand...

Damn. This question was addressed to me, but I wanted to get back on laptop to respond with appropriate quotes and links, and forgot. Thanks for addressing it and apologies to pharphis for not responding
 
I think the more interesting question will be how many of the articles and tweets sent supporting Smollet and stating that his account must be accepted without question will now be retracted. If the example of the Russian sponsored KAL007 conspiracy material is anything to go by probably very little.

I've heard that Pelosi has deleted her tweets, but it will be worth looking into whether or not anyone else will show the courage to accept being wrong in this case that she did.
 
Last edited:
Graham2001 said:
I think the more interesting question will be how many of the articles and tweets sent supporting Smollet and stating that his account must be accepted without question will now be retracted. If the example of the Russian sponsored KAL007 conspiracy material is anything to go by probably very little.

I've heard that Pelosi has deleted her tweets, but it will be worth looking into whether or not anyone else will show the courage to accept being wrong in this case that she did.
Click to expand...

People won't.

I honestly don't think most people are ready to have a serious conversation about equality yet.

We are at "awkward youth" stage of equality. We stumble, we **** up ,but we think we are doing the right think so no one can tell us to do it differently.

But I think it's coming, 5 or ten years down the road, a couple more incidents like this and some brave soul will ask " maybe instead of being nice, being fair is more important. " because essentially this situation and ones like it boil down to.

It's nice to believe people till absolutely proven otherwise. It is fair to demand evidence from everyone for a claim. This doesn't mean that bad things didn't happen, just that in order to punish them ,any fair society requires proof.

But as to where we stand in society right now? I don't know of any public figure with the balls to tell a rape or hate crime victim (or possible victim) " I'm not saying you were not harmed. Just that we require proof before we do anything. " that reality, at the moment is to harsh for people.

These are the consequences of the " what's wrong with being overly sensitive? " line of logic.
 
Thermal said:
Damn. This question was addressed to me, but I wanted to get back on laptop to respond with appropriate quotes and links, and forgot. Thanks for addressing it and apologies to pharphis for not responding
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it!

edit: and my "wow" was hardly fitting. My actual feeling on the matter that such a label being reappropriated in the way listed just waters down history, probably the exact opposite of what they want to accomplish...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom