Any hoax like this.
3 Likes
Direct victims are the tax payers who had to foot the bill for the investigation of his hoax. There are also the real victims that get resources diverted away from them.
2 Likes
This would assume that Lemon knew Jussie had broken the law.
I think it would have taken a lot more than simply being in the vicinity. And if they were, would Jussie have thought they would been the perfect fall guys or that they would have been witnesses? These hypothetical scenarios are pointless and only further division.
For a hypothetical, it is an Interesting one.
Interesting is good for a work of fiction but how does it make the world a better place?
Yes! Good fiction. I swear Iāve seen this general plot (somebody else goes to prison for your āharmlessā lie) in like 5 episodes of Law and Order.
As far as making the world a better place? Maybe not hugely impactful.
Because real charges never result from race hoaxesā¦
Iām sure good old Jussie would have kicked his integrity into high gear if someone was actually charged with the crime he said took place.
Imagine if he did a better job and didnāt get caught? And the police bring two āpale lookingā people into the court and find them guilty? It could have happened.
Anybody notice that the amount of hate crime hoaxes far out weigh the actual number of hate crimes? A narrative in desperate need of people to commit these hypothetical acts. And the extremely white people who spew this garbage all the time never seem to have any evidence, or refer to Charlottesville or go back to the 1930ās all the time. I mean if itās more dangerous than Al Qaeda and ISIS, certainly it needs to be eradicated.
You donāt think the government could possibly make up such salacious accusations to target political enemies would they? Thatās never happened.
That isnāt how it works. The state needs to show that they did the crime. Allegations with no proof donāt get you very far in a court of law. It wouldnāt even make it to court with only allegations, the state would know itās a losing case and drop it.
The hypothetical does require him to be a bit more sophisticated and nuanced than what he did. Presuming he does that, there could be false evidence convincing enough to get someone convicted. The FBI raided a ladyās house in Alaska because she looked remotely similar to another person, after all. If the FBI says you did it, itās difficult to prove you did not.
The thing about false evidence, is that defense lawyers are really good at showing it to be unreliable.
For something like this, what type of false evidence could he have used that would result in two random white dudes being convicted?
Ah good old gestapo. The guys that made Jan 6th and now are ruining peopleās lives on something they created, together with The Fascistic party.
For the most part, no such legal duty exists in the U.S. There are some notable exceptions, such as ongoing crimes involving children, but if, say, your friend gets drunk and tells you he murdered someone 10 years ago, you are under no obligation to report him.
Ethically of course itās a different story, and no easy answer exists. In my above hypothetical, I would argue that you have a moral duty to report him given the moral gravity of the offense. If the crime in question were, say, stealing someoneās car, Iād say probably not.
1 Like
Innocent people have and do go to prison for crimes they did not commit. The evidence in those cases were false by default, if it found an innocent man went to prison. It happens. And it could have happened in this case, should the hoax have been executed better. Thankfully it wasnāt. And thatās all I have to say on that.
The stories of abuse are unconscionable and that itās purely political hit job is further evidence that we are declining in precisely the way history tells us not to. There was a judge who found the prison guards in contempt for mistreating these guys.
One guy, who was found innocent as he was merely there and did not enter the capitol grounds was held in solitary for 3 months! Without trial, without due process. The Waukesha attacker isnāt even getting that kind of treatment. Okay, that was enough derailā¦
i think I read 3000 man-hours spent investigating. wowser
I have to wonder how weāve all decided Jessie Smollett is a lying liar (which I agree with), and have simultaneously decided he was telling the truth about his exchange with Don Lemon. Why have we decided he HAS to be telling the truth about that, after weāve already established he has zero credibility? So far, the only evidence that Iāve seen in this regard is Smollettās testimony, no actual text/phone records.
And fwiw, this is just a question about good faith argument here. I donāt have any idea if Lemon did this or not, I just wonder why people are trusting ANYTHING he has to say. I truly donāt give 2 shits about Don Lemmon, or Jussie Smollett for that matter. Smollettās an idiot who faked a crime for publicity. Itās shameful. Don Lemmon isā¦ idk. just a commentator. I donāt understand the immediate calls for his resignation based on a liarās accusations. I need to see more before I go that route.
1 Like
Lemonās a lying POS too FTR.
My main thing is what would be the motive to lie about it? Second, wrong or not, Lemonās silence looks guilty.
Good point. We cannot assume anything he says is true. Unless of course there was evidence of that. Which there may have been. If the texts were their.
And BTW, we are going to have to find an alternative to texting, since itās obviously compromised.
I am not up on all the chat apps out there, whatās the most secure?
The problem was, he wasnāt silent. He may have had half a chance if he didnāt take the stand. As far as now, whatās he gonna say? Nobody believes him and wonāt believe an apology which he is very far from doing. Heās still angling to get away with this shit. Heās silent because they are taking it to appeal. If he says anything it can be used against him.