• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

US Events Actor Jussie Smollett faces new disorderly conduct charges in alleged fake attack

cduggles said:
I wonder how many people have more than 20 detectives working their case?
Click to expand...

I wonder how many people he's harmed with his actions. How many murderers, rapists, thieves, will have gotten away thanks to police resources being misdirected into an anti-white hoax hate crime.

He really needs to do some time as an example but I don't see it happening.
 
^My reply was in part to the hypocrisy of the head of the CPD wishing at a news conference that other victims of violence got that much attention, considering the CPD resources allocated to one case.

Admittedly, I have no idea how many detectives are devoted to a case (presumably a lot fewer).

However, I don't think Smollett should be sentenced any differently than anyone who isn't famous for the same charges.

The CPD chose how to allocate their resources -- not Smollett. And Smolett should be penalized for his crimes, not his fame or success.
 
Media uproar can easily dictate to a PD how many resources they choose to allocate to something. They would've faced insane pressure and scrutiny to get this investigated asap and thoroughly, and that worked against Jussie. Nobody cares about that random black kid shot and murdered in Chicago last weekened (because it happens so often, Jussie's attack was novel and much important to the liberal media, unfortunately).

I agree with you, that's just not how it works in reality.
 
We'll see to what extent after his (lack of) punishment.

Turns out he paid the 2 brothers with a personal check. Real street-smart kingpin criminal in the making.
 
I don't see why his punishment should be particularly severe. The crime was a fake. Which means all he did really was waste state money and resources. You wanna throw the book at him, fine, make him pay back as much of the lost money as he can, tack on extra if he can afford it, and give him community service.

The jails are overcrowded as is and have highly questionable utility in non violent cases like this.

I most certainly don't buy this "how many murders went unsolved because of him" nonsense. You don't just put rapes and murders on hold for this sort of thing. And if you did, that's an unrelated problem to be solved at the administrative level involving utilization of resources.
 
He diverted police resources, you're just apologizing for him which I find disgusting.

Not to mention he could have instigated a national race war. Stop downplaying what he did, which was psychopathically political

Jordan Rachel said:
Jussie Smollett was unhappy with his salary now? Wait until AOC takes 70%!
Click to expand...
 
Yeah I'm apologizing for him, that is totally 100% a sensible interpretation of what I said and not the least bit extreme.

Oh and.. Sociopathically political, instigating a race war? Those aren't at all extreme either, and I definitely didn't find that last one silly to the point of comedy.

I can see there is little point attempting to discuss this further, we will have to simply agree to disagree.
 
JessFR said:
Which means all he did really was waste state money and resources.
Click to expand...
BS, you're ignoring the social, political and racial implications of his actions.

JessFR said:
The jails are overcrowded as is and have highly questionable utility in non violent cases like this.
Click to expand...
He should do time because the jails are overcrowded? What you're doing is the definition of an apologist.

Let me remind y'all that he was willing to sign a statement to put 2 innocent men in prison. The police said they found 2 suspects and it was only when Smollett saw that the 2 people were his hired goons did he refuse to go ahead with the action.

He should be put in jail for the length of time that his phantom attackers would've received for the hate crime assault against him. If anything to set an example and discourage further hoax hate crimes.
 
Yeah problem is I flat out don't believe in the concept of sentencing based on setting an example and deterrence. I think the evidence has shown that to be a total failure that fails to take into account how criminals think.

And I think this idea of some terrible wider danger of a race war is completely absurd.

He should be punished on the basis of the tangible social harm he caused. Which amounts to lost state resources, mostly money.

We have finite jail space and it should be used for people who have committed violent crimes against other people. Not pretend crimes
 
I believe that if the punishment for what he did would warrant jail time, he should get it, he should be punished how anyone else would have been punished for the exact same thing, him being a star and thus getting increased media coverage should not factor into his punishment. FWIW if he doesn't get at least some jail time, I think he's getting off too easy as this is a serious thing he's done.

I think the publicity of this mesmerizing failure is probably already in itself a deterrant against fake hate crimes. I hope.
 
alasdairm said:
maybe you can take your own advice and stick to evidence and facts?

alasdair
Click to expand...

alasdairm said:
just saying trying holding yourself to the same standard to which you hold everybody else.

alasdair
Click to expand...

These seems to be missing for a lot of people, especially those with a louder voice to the population than others (Trump, Pelosi, Booker, et al). Even in this thread, we have posters who jumped to outrage instead of waiting for facts.


JessFR said:
The jails are overcrowded as is and have highly questionable utility in non violent cases like this.
Click to expand...

I get this. But examples need to be made. Highly visible hearing, heavy sentence, then let him out in short time for various reasons (prison crowding, non-violent, etc). But don't give him less of a sentence because of these reasons - punish as warranted by the crime, then relax based on reality, IMO.
 
Yes we did have people who jumped to outrage without facts, on both sides. I did it, I immediately assumed he was actually attacked and that anyone defending him was being deplorable. That's why for me, this thread was a good lesson. I do find it questionable to jump just as immediately to "this guy is a lying piece of shit" like Priest did (for example) when the very first reports came out, too. We all should have maintained a level head and waited for the situation to resolve, knowing that media is going to just seek to cause an emotional response in both directions. Just because it turned out that he WAS lying, doesn't mean it was right to immediately treat him as if he was lying when it was just speculation still.
 
TheLoveBandit said:
These seems to be missing for a lot of people, especially those with a louder voice to the population than others (Trump, Pelosi, Booker, et al). Even in this thread, we have posters who jumped to outrage instead of waiting for facts.




I get this. But examples need to be made. Highly visible hearing, heavy sentence, then let him out in short time for various reasons (prison crowding, non-violent, etc). But don't give him less of a sentence because of these reasons - punish as warranted by the crime, then relax based on reality, IMO.
Click to expand...

I just don't agree with this "making an example" suggestion. As Shadowmeister rightly suggested, his punishment should be the same as it would be for anybody else. And in my opinion, nobody should go to jail for non violent offenses. We have plenty of other options for punishment that don't have the problems with resources, institutionalization and such that jails do.

If you're not criminally inclined before you go to jail, you're much more likely to be when you get out. It's an option I think should be reserved for those that simply can't be allowed to be in the public for safety reasons. I don't believe there's any evidence that use of prison as a deterrent works.

But also, making an example of him is a violation of the principle of equal justice. That everyone should be treated equally under the law. If you "make an example of" someone you suggest that they will be getting a harsher punishment than someone else for reasons unrelated to their actual crime. And I don't think that's ok.

Personally I think this idea that celebrities get lighter sentences than other people is far more complex than people think. It's true that wealthier people can afford better lawyers which you would expect to result in lighter sentences, but I think it's also true that many judges have given excessive sentences to minor celebrities specifically to avoid being seen as giving them a light sentence because of their status. Which is wrong too.

He should be treated the same as anyone else would be. No more, no less. And it's my view that America is excessive in our sentencing.

Seems like countries can't ever get it right, they either are excessively punitive like America, or excessively forgiving like Australia.

As usual, people just can't help but go to extremes.
 
Shadowmeister said:
Yes we did have people who jumped to outrage without facts, on both sides. I did it, I immediately assumed he was actually attacked and that anyone defending him was being deplorable. That's why for me, this thread was a good lesson. I do find it questionable to jump just as immediately to "this guy is a lying piece of shit" like Priest did (for example) when the very first reports came out, too. We all should have maintained a level head and waited for the situation to resolve, knowing that media is going to just seek to cause an emotional response in both directions. Just because it turned out that he WAS lying, doesn't mean it was right to immediately treat him as if he was lying when it was just speculation still.
Click to expand...

That's mature of you to say that, but I will say that by the time Priest made that post more than enough time had passed for someone to realize he was lying. If someone had said he was a lying piece of shit when they first heard the story and hadn't looked into it at all - that would be unacceptable. But what I found is that the people that wanted this to be true, were not able to analyze the pieces of evidence objectively therefore they believed it the whole time. If you think that there's no chance that someone is lying then you won't see facts or you'll willingly ignore other things.

You wanna know the irony here? Is that it's much more dangerous wearing a MAGA hat and walking around Chicago late at night!!
 
JessFR said:
And in my opinion, nobody should go to jail for non violent offenses.
Click to expand...
Faulty logic. He was willing to frame and put away 2 innocent people for committing a violent offense, a hate crime no less. In some ways this is even worse than attacking someone. Couple this with the media uproar and subsequent vocal attacks against certain groups, and it is far worse.
 
The legal system should and will take care of Smollett's case. He turned himself in and has to surrender his passport.

Smollett didn't put anyone behind bars except himself. The speculation that he would is just that and no more.

And media hyping has gone both ways now (pity him, punish him).
 
JessFR said:
But also, making an example of him is a violation of the principle of equal justice. That everyone should be treated equally under the law. If you "make an example of" someone you suggest that they will be getting a harsher punishment than someone else for reasons unrelated to their actual crime. And I don't think that's ok.

...

He should be treated the same as anyone else would be. No more, no less. And it's my view that America is excessive in our sentencing.
Click to expand...

We have laws on the books now, that describe punishment as intended for ALL who commit the crime. I'm saying he should be subject to those laws and those punishments - not more, not less. I think anyone else who commits a similar crime should be held to the same standard. I don't believe he should get off any easier because he's non-violent (debatable, considering the violence he orchestrated, but I won't hold on this point), nor because prisons are crowded, nor because of any other reason. Same standard as everyone else.

If you do feel American laws are excessive in their sentencing, that is a separate issue. Completely separate. When and if the laws are changed, all should be subject to that standard at that time. Right now, under our current laws, he deserves the sentencing on the books.
 
cduggles said:
The legal system should and will take care of Smollett's case.
Click to expand...
Coz miscarriages of justice never happen. We'll see how politically-connected he is based on his sentencing.

cduggles said:
Smollett didn't put anyone behind bars except himself. The speculation that he would is just that and no more.
Click to expand...
False. When police told him they caught the guys he had no issues wrongfully accusing two guys who had nothing to do with it. As soon as he found out it was the guys he hired he requested charges not be pressed. If his lie was not found out some innocent guys would be in jail because of this lying POS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top