Everyone has heard by now that the jury didn't buy the Juss-Meister's preposterous MAGA story, but he was found NOT guilty on one count. Does anyone know what the sixth count was, the one for which he was found not guilty?
To answer my own question, I found the indictment; it was a variation of the same charge in all counts, but count 6 says he repeated the claim in February (the other false reports were all made on late January).
He will get probation instead of prison. Which would be fine with me if A: it wasn't because he's rich and famous (and of course it is because of that) and B: he should also be fined for every taxpayer dollar spent investigating and prosecuting this.
I, too, don't think that Jussie should have to go to prison and think there should be an intelligent way for him to make restitution. After all, isn't his public humiliation already a form of punishment too?
Generally I oppose imprisonning people for non-violent crimes. Very large fines should suffice in most cases.
I used to think that. Then that QB murders all those dogs -- Michael Vick -- and I thought he'd be unemployable and shunned and take up residence under a bridge. I think it was less than a year later that he was making millions again playing football. Of course, he accepted responsibility and took his licks. Jussie is still defiant. There is no way he can admit guilt at this point. Anyway, since he's nothing worse than obnoxious, probation is fine with me. Sounds like he is proud of his marijuana use. He'll be tested regularly and have to give that up. If he can't, or won't, his probation will be revoked. Honestly, 30 days in jail is probably preferable to 2 or more years of probation. It's not a walk in the park, and lots of people get revoked after spending a whole year taking drug tests and taking classes.
Now I hear he's appealing because "the jury can't find him guilty on some charges and not guilty on others." Uh, wrong. They can.
I really don't want to think Biden and Harris are idiots, but they both swallowed this story hook, line and sinker. https://mobile.twitter.com/joebiden/status/1090422326783606784?lang=en Why can't politicians reserve judgement on criminal allegations and let justice take its course ... in the courtroom? Is that too much to ask? Are they embarrassed by the verdict? Will they say so? If not, they're indicting the justice system and effectively calling the Nigerian Brothers perjurers.
"Smollett's lawyers said they will appeal the verdict. He said Smollett was 'disappointed' but remains '100% confident' he will win on appeal." Jussie is getting led down the primrose path. His lawyers either know better or should know better than to fill his head with a fantasy.
The same way they rush in and condemn police officers as soon as something happens. To them the right and wrong and facts do not matter. Only the political spin and how it makes them look to be in favor of or against something.
Yep, all the time. And in fact, about half the time each side is right. Being a MOTR moderate, I often sit back and laugh at both sides for that. Now in this case, you can see both. Many on the Right looking at the initial reports and saying it was BS. And the Left saying it was a hate crime. Or the Nick Sandmann - Nathan Phillips incident a few years ago. Of course, most of those who picked the side of the "Indian" activist ended up with egg on their face when other videos of the "mean White kid" came out, but that is beside the point. Sides were taken, it is just that half were right and half were wrong.
Maybe he should be found guilty (and he definitely reported a false crime, which is and should be a crime), but being found guilty of 5 counts is just ridiculous. The law is a joke. Committing one simple crime automatically violates countless different laws that are on the books. You could theoretically spend life in prison for the smallest little crime, according to what the law says. Charge you with 5 or 10 different violations. If Smollett falsely led other people to believe that racism existed where it didn't, and his actions will make society less likely to believe other claimed cases of racism, should he be punished for that? Or is that society's fault? In my opinion he should only be punished for filing a false report, and any element of racism (or what society believes about racism) in this case should be irrelevant. But often the "justice" system does not run according to my opinions. Or do you think we need to have a special new law, a "reverse hate crime", that makes falsely claiming a hate crime happened a more severe crime than falsely claiming a regular crime happened?
Each count was a separate offense, like stealing beer from 6 different stores on six different days is 6 different offenses, but the sentences all run concurrently (in the vast majority of cases). His bigger problem will be making a living. No one will trust him ever again unless it's something local clothier or a warehouse job (where there's nothing to steal). It's been such an extended display of dishonesty a.d moral turpitude.
It was so much more, including the fact that he made the same statements to multiple people. Tell me, if you go out and kill one person, should the punishment be worse if instead you kill 10 people? And if so, why? After all, they are already being punished for one murder, why punish them for others? And they could have gone after him for Felony level conspiracy charges that would have seen him in jail for over 20 years. And yes, if there is additional charges for something being a "hate crime", then the false reporting of such should also be increased. You seem so concerned with the rights of victims. Well, in these cases you are literally talking about a case where a completely innocent person could be thrown in jail for a crime that did not even happen! Or to cover the crime by another. This is so much worse than most of the instances you are describing in your posts, because this in and of itself I would say it a "hate crime". Here is a great example. Back in 1994, Susan Smith was a white mother in South Carolina. And she called the cops, spinning a story of her car being stolen with her kids inside by a black man. One she had happened to pass on the road earlier. Well, the cops did indeed find him, and quickly dismissed him as a suspect. But Susan made several mistakes, including thinking that the cops in South Carolina were corrupt and would surely beat and charge a black man for stealing a car with two white children inside. Well, turns out old Susan killed her kids herself, they were still strapped in their car seats when she pushed the car into a pond. She becomes eligible for parole in 2024. Now imagine a world where the man is indeed arrested, spends time in jail, and months later is released after it is finally realized she killed them. Should she not be punished for what she put him through? Specifically targeting a black man in the belief he would be charged and she should go free?
Stochastic terrorist. I just hope his career is ****ed for the remainder of his life because the type of harm he attempted to cause society is enormous.
I understand that sentiment, but I just do not believe it is fair to punish him for harm to society. That is society's responsibility if society reacts differently to his lie about a single crime that did not really happen. It seems there are plenty on both the Right and Left who want to punish him. On the Right, because he tried to further a narrative (which is pushed by the Left) by lying; and on the Left, because when society did find out it was a lie, that did great damage to their narrative, and they think that will make people less likely to believe real racist attacks, if or when they happen.
The danger of pushing a false hate crime to society is something that shouldn't be downplayed or ignored. I want him to serve as an example to deter future idiots from perpetuating a false narrative that creates division and hate. As well as all those who immediately believed such a bullshit story. A slap on the wrist wont do that.
It isn't. Falsely reporting a hate crime to a police officer is a crime. Reporting it again at a different time with different details to a different police officer is another crime. If the jury so concludes.
I don't see why lying about a crime to more than one police worker should be a greater crime than lying to only one of them. If I ask you if something happened and you say yes, then I ask you again if that thing happened and you respond yes again, should that count as two different crimes? That type of thinking is just absurd and ridiculous. I don't even believe you can be serious about this.
Theoretically, yes, the law could be interpreted like that (and likely there do exist prosecutors who might try to use that) but I think it would be a great misuse of that law. It would be wrong and unfair. The idea of "conspiracy laws" was not meant to apply to situations like that.
