• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jussie Smollet Trial

Thermal said:
As I see things, integrity is someone's most important trait. Even if you are running some half-assed hoax caper, you have to be good to your word, and be able to be trusted when push comes to shove. I wouldn't have gotten involved in these three's little madcap adventure, but if I had, you could count on me to stick to my guns with the same confidence that the sun will rise in the east.

A hommie is only as good as his word. We have arguments on the forum all the time about honesty and it's high value (except among our cowardly eyelash-fluttering contingent). You have to be able to trust someone's word to be solid, or they are literally worthless.

And the Osindarios didn't have an attack of conscience and come clean; it was only when they got leaned on. So they get dead zero points for Doing the Right Thing, because they 110% didn't, until it served their personal interests. Fair weather ******** have no value as people..
Click to expand...

You mean busted. The cops had them, dead to rights. All evidence pointed to them being the attackers. No one else. When presented with this information, Smollet refused to press charges against them. But it didn't matter, the cops still had everything necessary to charge them with the crime, and Smollet wasn't paying them anywhere near enough to go to jail for him. What else were they to do?
 
Mike! said:
You mean busted. The cops had them, dead to rights. All evidence pointed to them being the attackers. No one else. When presented with this information, Smollet refused to press charges against them. But it didn't matter, the cops still had everything necessary to charge them with the crime, and Smollet wasn't paying them anywhere near enough to go to jail for him. What else were they to do?
Click to expand...

Except it was all circumstantial, and JS (the "victim") said it was white boys. Smollett surely would have backed them up on whatever cockamamie cover story they came up with, and there was simply not enough evidence to nail anyone. I mean, OJ walked, right?
 
Thermal said:
And the Osindarios didn't have an attack of conscience and come clean; it was only when they got leaned on. So they get dead zero points for Doing the Right Thing, because they 110% didn't, until it served their personal interests. Fair weather ******** have no value as people..
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less if their motivations were less than pure. They ended up doing the right thing- by telling the plain, simple truth. They had every right to make the best deal possible for themselves. If Smollett had a shred of actual "integrity", he would have confessed as soon as he saw the police closing in on his useful idiots. Instead, he went around the country, yelling about what an amazing superhero he was, more than happy to let others take the fall for his ego glorification and greed.
 
trustbutverify said:
I couldn't care less if their motivations were less than pure. They ended up doing the right thing- by telling the plain, simple truth. They had every right to make the best deal possible for themselves. If Smollett had a shred of actual "integrity", he would have confessed as soon as he saw the police closing in on his useful idiots. Instead, he went around the country, yelling about what an amazing superhero he was, more than happy to let others take the fall for his ego glorification and greed.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not suggesting Smollett is in any way better. Au contraire, he is morally worse, agreed. The Osindarios though, cannot be trusted. I mean, would you trust them for anything whatsoever? They might be scamming you, or reporting something you did to whoever they could. They'd sell your ass in a heartbeat.

Smollett, OTOH, actually refused to press charges against them, even as their caper fell apart. That's actually stand-up behavior, as weird as it seems. He didn't throw them under the bus till they squealed like little piggies. At that point, they don't matter and it's fair to **** on them.

I wouldn't expect Smollett to be anything but a self absorbed egomaniac that wanted to be the Gay Tupac, and would happily lie to give that impression. I can trust him for that, and in that weird way, I can trust him. Not so the brothers. They play whatever side of the fence works out for them at the time
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Oh, I'm not suggesting Smollett is in any way better. Au contraire, he is morally worse, agreed. The Osindarios though, cannot be trusted. I mean, would you trust them for anything whatsoever? They might be scamming you, or reporting something you did to whoever they could. They'd sell your ass in a heartbeat.

Smollett, OTOH, actually refused to press charges against them, even as their caper fell apart. That's actually stand-up behavior, as weird as it seems. He didn't throw them under the bus till they squealed like little piggies. At that point, they don't matter and it's fair to **** on them.

I wouldn't expect Smollett to be anything but a self absorbed egomaniac that wanted to be the Gay Tupac, and would happily lie to give that impression. I can trust him for that, and in that weird way, I can trust him. Not so the brothers. They play whatever side of the fence works out for them at the time
Click to expand...
You are privileging loyalty to an antisocial scumbag over loyalty to the society in which you live and move. Why?

Why do you hate repentance?

Why do you think scumbags have a moral claim worth honoring?

Why do you demonize a change of heart by those exploited?

Your argument condemns slaves who turn against their "owners".
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thermal said:
As I see things, integrity is someone's most important trait. Even if you are running some half-assed hoax caper, you have to be good to your word, and be able to be trusted when push comes to shove. I wouldn't have gotten involved in these three's little madcap adventure, but if I had, you could count on me to stick to my guns with the same confidence that the sun will rise in the east.

A hommie is only as good as his word. We have arguments on the forum all the time about honesty and it's high value (except among our cowardly eyelash-fluttering contingent). You have to be able to trust someone's word to be solid, or they are literally worthless.

And the Osindarios didn't have an attack of conscience and come clean; it was only when they got leaned on. So they get dead zero points for Doing the Right Thing, because they 110% didn't, until it served their personal interests. Fair weather ******** have no value as people..
Click to expand...

"There is no honor among thieves." - Somebody, a long time ago.
 
theprestige said:
You are privileging loyalty to an antisocial scumbag over loyalty to the society in which you live and move. Why?

Why do you hate repentance?

Why do you think scumbags have a moral claim worth honoring?

Why do you demonize a change of heart by those exploited?

Your argument condemns slaves who turn against their "owners".

Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
Click to expand...


Agreed. That is a strange argument to me too. Seems like only other criminals should care about the integrity of these dopes :boggled:

This was my favorite thread (the original one) due solely to the ridiculously stupid behavior of Smollett, and the celebrities and so-called public servants who not only believed him but actually tried to help him.

Jussie did everything he could do to ensure he looked as guilty as possible. Maybe it was drugs. I can't imagine anyone handling himself any worse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Waxing a tad hyperbolic here, are you not?

theprestige said:
You are privileging loyalty to an antisocial scumbag over loyalty to the society in which you live and move. Why?
Click to expand...
I am not. It has nothing to do with the Jussmeister or society. It has to do with the Osinarios being trustworthy.

Why do you hate repentance?
Click to expand...

I do not. Repentance is a noble thing. Snitching when caught to avoid threats of punishment is not repentance. Repentance comes willingly from within.

Why do you think scumbags have a moral claim worth honoring?
Click to expand...
...wut?

Why do you demonize a change of heart by those exploited?
Click to expand...

I know of no one exploited, nor having had a change of heart, nor being demonized. I know of willing hustlers, with full knowledge of their actions and the wrongness of them, who only saw the proverbial light when in the ******* interrogation room.

Better question: Why do you fawn over these two grown-ass men like they are dewey-eyed innocents? They were drug dealing, lying, cheating weasels. What's with this halo you are trying to pry over their horns?

Your argument condemns slaves who turn against their "owners".
Click to expand...

My argument assumes a willing mutual trust relationship. Please tell us all about how your analogous slaves were in such a willing mutual trust relationship. With feeling, if you please.

Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
Click to expand...
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Response to rule 0 and rule 12 breach.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So the one charge of the six he was found not guilty of was "making a false police report that he was a victim of an aggravated battery". How does that work? If the whole thing was found to be a hoax, and he in fact filed a report of an aggravated battery, isn't that a shoe-in for guilty?
 
Mike! said:
You mean busted. The cops had them, dead to rights. All evidence pointed to them being the attackers. No one else. When presented with this information, Smollet refused to press charges against them. But it didn't matter, the cops still had everything necessary to charge them with the crime, and Smollet wasn't paying them anywhere near enough to go to jail for him. What else were they to do?
Click to expand...

General questions: once the police had located the brothers and determined they were the ones who had attacked Smollet, isn't it up to the DA to press charges? Does the DA actually need a "go ahead" from the victim, or a complaint? I this case, as far as I'm concerned they have a complaint: Smollet said he was attacked by two people, and the police found the two people who had attacked them.
 
Thermal said:
So the one charge of the six he was found not guilty of was "making a false police report that he was a victim of an aggravated battery". How does that work? If the whole thing was found to be a hoax, and he in fact filed a report of an aggravated battery, isn't that a shoe-in for guilty?
Click to expand...

I'd have to see the details of exactly what he said. Maybe there was some ambiguity in what he said to detective Graves, or the evidence wasn't quite as strong as for the other statements, and the jurors decided to let that one go.

The charges were all for false statements made to police officers.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-charges-does-jussie-smollett-face-at-trial

Each count of disorderly conduct represents an instance during Jan. 29, 2019, and then on Feb. 14, 2019, in which Smollett allegedly lied to police.

Count 1 accuses him of telling responding Chicago Police Officer Muhammed Baig at around 2:45 a.m., some 45 minutes after the purported attack, that he was the victim of a hate crime. He said two attackers put a rope around his neck. Count 2 refers to Smollett telling the same officer he was a victim of a battery, describing attackers beating and pouring bleach on him.

Counts 3 and 4 are when Smollett made the same claims but to a different officer, Kimberly Murray, later that morning, at just before 6 a.m.

Count 5 accuses Smollett of again telling Murray at around 7:15 p.m. that he was the victim of a battery. Count 6 refers to Smollett reporting on Feb. 14, 2019, to detective Robert Graves that he’d been a victim of an aggravated battery.
Click to expand...

It may be the case that by Feb. 14 he was aware that the police didn't believe his story (and perhaps already lawyered-up), and so he was more careful about what he said on that occasion. That is only speculation though. The 5 guilty charges were for the statements he made initially and on the following day. The last one was over 2 weeks later.
 
Last edited:
Mike! said:
Looks like whatever sentence awaits him, it'll be late January at the soonest before anyone finds out.





https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...0211209-ygk6goeptjggrozvbgasqpxd5u-story.html
Click to expand...

I wonder what he will get. These are felonies, but only Class 4. Probably concurrent sentences because these are all basically the same crime.

I really hate false crime reports. But he didn't accuse a specific person, which is a large mitigating factor. It was only a report of a simple assault. It wasn't a bomb threat or something that caused a huge disruption or something to further a financial fraud or anything like that. This is on the lower end.

The aggravating factors are that in 2007 he was arrested for DUI and falsely gave his brother's name, which is a somewhat similar crime of providing false information to police. He chose to perpetuate his lie in court rather than accept a plea deal (especially considering that he had the prosecutor in his back pocket and got a sweet-heart deal). And, although it can seem a bit odd, he is famous and went on television and whatnot sharing this lie. And especially that this false report was for an alleged hate crime. I think those things have an impact on society larger than a normal false police report.

This would probably normally be just probation. If I were the judge I think I would go further. Maybe 14 days in jail to be served over the next year at his discretion. Do it all at once or every weekend for a couple months or whatever. An inconvenience the same way he created an inconvenience. Maybe 80 hours community service. Restitution for the cost of the investigation. And a couple years probation.

He will probably get less than that. Possibly some in-home confinement because that has much less burden on the jail system. Although I think a few days in jail would do him some good. He probably gets a fine and probation.
 
Last edited:
Mike! said:
Looks like whatever sentence awaits him, it'll be late January at the soonest before anyone finds out.





https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...0211209-ygk6goeptjggrozvbgasqpxd5u-story.html
Click to expand...

They have to wait a month and a half...for the lawyers to discuss scheduling? Couldn't their secretaries handle that like, while they were still in the courtroom? The sheer volume of time that white-collar people spend wasting time is just stunning.

So the six counts were for the same thing done at different times. Ok, I didn't realize that. Seems kind of like charging for individual punches in a fight, but whatever.

The main thing I'd still like to know is how Chicago PD had the superabundance of resources to dedicate so much of their personnel to this case. I mean, if it was you or me, wouldn't we get one noob who would say "don't get your hopes up. We'll call you if we find anything", then never think about it again.

Good to hear that Chicago Illinois is so free of crime, yet its citizens happy to fund a platoon of detectives to chase around whatever trivial **** comes along. I sure hope that if I ever lose my wallet, it's in Chicago.
 
Puppycow said:
I'd have to see the details of exactly what he said. Maybe there was some ambiguity in what he said to detective Graves, or the evidence wasn't quite as strong as for the other statements, and the jurors decided to let that one go.

The charges were all for false statements made to police officers.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-charges-does-jussie-smollett-face-at-trial



It may be the case that by Feb. 14 he was aware that the police didn't believe his story (and perhaps already lawyered-up), and so he was more careful about what he said on that occasion. That is only speculation though. The 5 guilty charges were for the statements he made initially and on the following day. The last one was over 2 weeks later.
Click to expand...

So Smollett is charged with making a false report of battery. Did he tho? Let's get all Kyle Rittenhouse for a sec and dissect the language:

Battery is defined in Illinois thusly:

(720 ILCS 5/12-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 12-3)
Sec. 12-3. Battery.
(a) A person commits battery if he or she knowingly without legal justification by any means (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.
Click to expand...

Aggravated, in Smollett's case seems to mean it was claimed to happen on a "public way".

Well...this did happen, right? It was with Jussie's knowledge and consent, but the law doesn't seem to preclude that.

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+12%2C+Subdiv%2E+5&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=21300000&SeqEnd=23400000
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
So Smollett is charged with making a false report of battery. Did he tho? Let's get all Kyle Rittenhouse for a sec and dissect the language:

Battery is defined in Illinois thusly:



Aggravated, in Smollett's case seems to mean it was claimed to happen on a "public way".

Well...this did happen, right? It was with Jussie's knowledge and consent, but the law doesn't seem to preclude that.

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+12%2C+Subdiv%2E+5&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=21300000&SeqEnd=23400000
Click to expand...

I pretty sure consent grants legal justification. Like boxing.
 
I'm wondering just how many offers he is getting for a gay porn gig?

After that steamy testimony, it only seems logical.
 
The defense has already stated their intent to appeal. On what grounds, who knows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom