Hate Crime or Hoax?

[Chef Jim]

36 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I'm not sure how I feel about this. What is to prevent this from becoming a revenue stream for cities if they deem reports are false or to collection on any investigation if someone admits to a crime (plea bargains out the window)? Will it deter people from filing any reports? Or only false reports?
 

Chicago Will Sue Jussie Smollett After Saying Actor Refuses to Reimburse City $130,000 for Investigation
 

</snip>
 

Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s law chief sent Smollett a March 28 letter demanding he pay $130,106 — plus 15 cents — within seven days.
 

The City Law Department said in a Thursday statement that Smollett had refused to pay, adding that it was already drafting a lawsuit in response and would file it “in the near future.”
 

</snip>

 

 

Yes I brought this up awhile ago.  I looked up slippery slope in the dictionary and this article came up.  And it's not even a guilty plea.  Jussie plead not guilty the charges were dropped and now the city wants him to reimburse for expenses?  You can't do that. 

[Koko78]

3 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Yes I brought this up awhile ago.  I looked up slippery slope in the dictionary and this article came up.  And it's not even a guilty plea.  Jussie plead not guilty the charges were dropped and now the city wants him to reimburse for expenses?  You can't do that. 

 

He was not acquitted. They most certainly can. They can also make the investigation materials public through the civil suit, circumventing the highly dubious sealing that the criminal court imposed, on top of asking for treble damages.

 

That said, however, I fully expect the new mayor to direct her Law Dept. to quietly bury/dismiss the civil suit.

[row_33]

all the exposure of his fake attack has cost him a lot of $$$ he could have made on TV shows

 

 

[Chef Jim]

11 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

He was not acquitted. They most certainly can. They can also make the investigation materials public through the civil suit, circumventing the highly dubious sealing that the criminal court imposed, on top of asking for treble damages.

 

That said, however, I fully expect the new mayor to direct her Law Dept. to quietly bury/dismiss the civil suit.

 

I never said he was acquitted.  The charges were dropped.  He was never found guilty of any crime.  You want to be charged for the court cost for a case that you went to court for when the charges were dropped because for instance the cop who wrote you the ticked didn't appear?  

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I never said he was acquitted.  The charges were dropped.  He was never found guilty of any crime.  You want to be charged for the court cost for a case that you went to court for when the charges were dropped because for instance the cop who wrote you the ticked didn't appear?  

 

Charges being dropped (especially in a pretty corrupt manner) does not shield one from civil liability.  OJ was not found guilty of murder after a tril, for example, and still owes a metric crapton of money to the Goldmans after losing the civil suit. Being acquitted after trial is a bit more significant than having the charges mysteriously dropped.

 

You're trying to make a false equivalence of a traffic ticket being dismissed because the cop didn't show up and 16 felonies being dropped in an unannounced "emergency" hearing, with the record being immediately sealed, after he performed a whopping two days of community service and agreed to forfeit a $10,000 bond (both of which are, arguably, tacit admissions of guilt.) Innocent people do not perform community service and forfeit 10 grand to have the charges dropped.

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Koko78

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Charges being dropped (especially in a pretty corrupt manner) does not shield one from civil liability.  OJ was not found guilty of murder after a tril, for example, and still owes a metric crapton of money to the Goldmans after losing the civil suit. Being acquitted after trial is a bit more significant than having the charges mysteriously dropped.

 

You're trying to make a false equivalence of a traffic ticket being dismissed because the cop didn't show up and 16 felonies being dropped in an unannounced "emergency" hearing, with the record being immediately sealed, after he performed a whopping two days of community service and agreed to forfeit a $10,000 bond (both of which are, arguably, tacit admissions of guilt.) Innocent people do not perform community service and forfeit 10 grand to have the charges dropped.

 

 

They are going after the absolute wrong person.  Going after Jussie for $100k will never ever solve the corruption problem.  The civil trial here should not be against Jussie.  It should be against Foxx.  But back to my point.  You don't see a very scary precedent being set here? 

[Koko78]

18 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

They are going after the absolute wrong person.  Going after Jussie for $100k will never ever solve the corruption problem.  The civil trial here should not be against Jussie.  It should be against Foxx.  But back to my point.  You don't see a very scary precedent being set here? 

 

Oh this is all ego, no question. Chicago PD is butthurt over what happened, and Smollette's smug bullschiff pronouncement of innocence. This is happening after they took a black eye over covering up a kid being killed.

 

Regardless, this is less about the money (which can be tripled up to $390,000) than it is vindication for the Chicago PD officers who are upset that they spent a lot of time and effort to uncover the hoax, only to have it quickly buried in a really thinly-veiled corrupt bargain. The entire point of the demand was to either have him pay the money, admitting guilt, or go to a civil trial on the ordinance, where the evidence the DA had buried can be publicly used.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Koko78

[Chef Jim]

13 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Oh this is all ego, no question. Chicago PD is butthurt over what happened, and Smollette's smug bullschiff pronouncement of innocence. This is happening after they took a black eye over covering up a kid being killed.

 

Regardless, this is less about the money (which can be tripled up to $390,000) than it is vindication for the Chicago PD officers who are upset that they spent a lot of time and effort to uncover the hoax, only to have it quickly buried in a really thinly-veiled corrupt bargain. The entire point of the demand was to either have him pay the money, admitting guilt, or go to a civil trial on the ordinance, where the evidence the DA had buried can be publicly used.

 

I'm still not getting how this liability lies on Jussie.  

[Koko78]

12 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I'm still not getting how this liability lies on Jussie.  

 

Because he falsely reported an incident, then doubled down on the lies, wasting hundreds and hundreds of man-hours of the Chicago PD investigating a hoax he perpetrated. The theory of liability is that the Chicago taxpayers deserve reimbursement for him wasting the time of the Chicago PD.

 

Seeking reimbursement is not really that uncommon a thing to do for local governments after someone reports a hoax.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Koko78

[Chef Jim]

9 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Because he falsely reported an incident, then doubled down on the lies, wasting hundreds and hundreds of man-hours of the Chicago PD investigating a hoax he perpetrated. The theory of liability is that the Chicago taxpayers deserve reimbursement for him wasting the time of the Chicago PD.

 

Seeking reimbursement is not really that uncommon a thing to do for local governments after someone reports a hoax.

 

The hoax wasn't proven as fact was it?  We all know he did it but innocent until proven guilty right?  Again I'm only going the slippery slope/devil's advocate route.  

[row_33]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

 

The hoax wasn't proven as fact was it?  We all know he did it but innocent until proven guilty right?  Again I'm only going the slippery slope/devil's advocate route.  

 

It has to be worth the cost to pursue it.

 

it isn’t and wasn’t and won’t beeeeeeee

[reddogblitz]

15 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

Seeking reimbursement is not really that uncommon a thing to do for local governments after someone reports a hoax.

 

Wouldn't that be a crime he should be prosecuted for?  How can it be proven to be a hoax of there is no trial?

 

Are there other cases you can point to where a person made a false accusation and then the accuser was required to pay for the police investigation without due process?

 

I think what Jussie is accused of is abhorrent.  But making him pay for the investigation without due process is a wrong remedy IMHO.

Edited April 5, 2019 by reddogblitz

[row_33]

I don’t want people deprived of rights or freedom or $$ unless proven in court or admitted

 

but I don’t need that level of proof to come up with my opinion, which won’t bother him at all

[Koko78]

18 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

The hoax wasn't proven as fact was it?  We all know he did it but innocent until proven guilty right?  Again I'm only going the slippery slope/devil's advocate route.  

 

Couldn't tell you, they hid the evidence. That's the point of the civil trial.

[DC Tom]

12 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Wouldn't that be a crime he should be prosecuted for? 

 

Yes...and how'd that go?

[Koko78]

15 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Wouldn't that be a crime he should be prosecuted for?  How can it be proven to be a hoax of there is no trial?

 

Are there other cases you can point to where a person made a false accusation and then the accuser was required to pay for the police investigation without due process?

 

I think what Jussie is accused of is abhorrent.  But making him pay for the investigation without due process is a wrong remedy IMHO.

 

THAT. IS. THE. *****. POINT. OF. HAVING. A. CIVIL. TRIAL.

 

Seriously, this is not a complicated thing to understand.

[reddogblitz]

14 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

THAT. IS. THE. *****. POINT. OF. HAVING. A. CIVIL. TRIAL.

 

Seriously, this is not a complicated thing to understand.

 

If the civil trial finds him guilty or whatever and rewards damages to the city I suppose that's OK I guess.

 

I agree with the Chef.  Slippery slope.  I could see this morphing into the day when on my way home from work I think I see a crime happen.  I report it. It turns out to be false.  A bureaucrat decides it was a hoax and sends me a bill for $40,000.

 

These kinds of things even though they feel good at the time often come back to bite one in the buttox later.

 

Serious question: Are you aware of any other case where a person falsely accused a crime and was required to pay for the police investigation?

 

Again, I think what Jussie allegedly did is abhorrent. I want to prosecute him to the full extent of the law.  Not make up new laws.  Foxx should be investigated and prosecuted if wrong doing can be proved.

[row_33]

i have read about people getting lost in the wilderness up here and having to pay for the rescue efforts.

 

You should take a compass with you at the very least on these excursions.

 

 

[Chef Jim]

24 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Couldn't tell you, they hid the evidence. That's the point of the civil trial.

 

How much will this civil trial cost?  Probably triple the cost of the investigation.  Just ***** let it go.  

[row_33]

10 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

How much will this civil trial cost?  Probably triple the cost of the investigation.  Just ***** let it go.  

 

it was always silly to me, a stunt turned bad

 

the use of CPD resources to this extent, in a city known for daily murder, doesn't ring well

 

 

[Koko78]

44 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

How much will this civil trial cost?  Probably triple the cost of the investigation.  Just ***** let it go.  

 

How much will it cost the city? Very little. The city attorneys are getting paid either way.

50 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

If the civil trial finds him guilty or whatever and rewards damages to the city I suppose that's OK I guess.

 

I agree with the Chef.  Slippery slope.  I could see this morphing into the day when on my way home from work I think I see a crime happen.  I report it. It turns out to be false.  A bureaucrat decides it was a hoax and sends me a bill for $40,000.

 

These kinds of things even though they feel good at the time often come back to bite one in the buttox later.

 

Serious question: Are you aware of any other case where a person falsely accused a crime and was required to pay for the police investigation?

 

Again, I think what Jussie allegedly did is abhorrent. I want to prosecute him to the full extent of the law.  Not make up new laws.  Foxx should be investigated and prosecuted if wrong doing can be proved.

 

Can I think of cases where someone was accused of a crime and had to pay? What?

 

This has nothing to do with whether he was accused of a crime (which was related to FALSELY REPORTING A CRIME), and everything to do with him allegedly falsely reporting an attack, then lying to investigators on numerous occasions to keep the hoax going.

 

Honestly, where is the disconnect? This is not complicated to understand. He falsely reported a crime that he invented. He perpetrated a hoax. He wasted hundreds of man-hours of police time. For a hoax. He wasted taxpayer money running the cops in circles to investigate a crime he invented. As a hoax.

 

These are not arcane concepts.

[row_33]

14 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

How much will it cost the city? Very little. The city attorneys are getting paid either way.

 

they are huge on rigging budgets and skewing results on convictions (The Wire didn't exaggerate all that much)

 

it's not worth the precious city resources to continue with this

 

 

[reddogblitz]

6 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

This has nothing to do with whether he was accused of a crime (which was related to FALSELY REPORTING A CRIME), and everything to do with him allegedly falsely reporting an attack, then lying to investigators on numerous occasions to keep the hoax going. 

 

Honestly, where is the disconnect? This is not complicated to understand. He falsely reported a crime that he invented. He perpetrated a hoax. He wasted hundreds of man-hours of police time. For a hoax. He wasted taxpayer money running the cops in circles to investigate a crime he invented. As a hoax.

 

OK, Third time.

 

Serious question.  Are you aware of any other case in US history where a person made false accusations and lied to the police and then had to pay for the police investigation?

 

Actually he was accused of 16 crimes but they were not prosecuted (which should be investigated btw).  It's also a crime to lie to the police.

 

Third time too.  What he did was super lame and destructive and he should be hung by his toe nails in the town square for 2 weeks, but that's not how our justice system works.

[Koko78]

1 minute ago, reddogblitz said:

 

OK, Third time.

 

Serious question.  Are you aware of any other case in US history where a person made false accusations and lied to the police and then had to pay for the police investigation?

 

YES. I SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THIS IS NOT UNCOMMON.

 

1 hour ago, Koko78 said:

 

Seeking reimbursement is not really that uncommon a thing to do for local governments after someone reports a hoax.

 

Pay ***** attention.

[Chef Jim]

11 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

How much will it cost the city? Very little. The city attorneys are getting paid either way.

 

 

So you really think this is the best use of the cities resources?  I would suggest they use their time to investigate how these charges came to be dropped and who was involved and if any money changed hands.  Going after Jussie is just petty IMO. 

[Koko78]

2 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

So you really think this is the best use of the cities resources? 

 

Where did I ever say that?

[row_33]

14 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

So you really think this is the best use of the cities resources?  I would suggest they use their time to investigate how these charges came to be dropped and who was involved and if any money changed hands.  Going after Jussie is just petty IMO. 

 

the city is under national mockery for ineptitude in stopping frequent wanton murder in a small sector

 

 

[Chef Jim]

3 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Where did I ever say that?

 

I never accused you of saying it.  I'm asking if you think it's a good use of the cities resources?  Because you're sure fighting for it here. 

[Doc]

He should have to pay.  And frankly I'm surprised it only cost $130K.

[reddogblitz]

2 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

YES. I SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THIS IS NOT UNCOMMON.

 

 

Pay ***** attention.

 

If it's not uncommon you should be able to name at least one case I would think.

[Koko78]

45 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

If it's not uncommon you should be able to name at least one case I would think.

 

Yes, I can.

[IDBillzFan]

You'll never guess why people are criticizing Kim foxx for dropping charges on Smollett.

 

Oh, wait.

 

Yes you will.

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

Not racism again! I hate when that happens. (Good thing we’ve all got only 11 years and 8 months before the planet expires.)

[3rdnlng]

I wonder if when the world ends, if everything will just turn black.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

45 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

You'll never guess why people are criticizing Kim foxx for dropping charges on Smollett.

 

Oh, wait.

 

Yes you will.

 

 

Actually, the Smollette case simply reinforces the notion that racism is on the run in the USA.  I'd argue if his name was Jussie Fitzgerald Shriver-Kennedy, and her name was Theodore Wadsworth Smitherton we would have seen precisely the same outcome.  Regular shmoes like the rest of us would have shaken our heads at the two-tier justice system, of powerful people behind the scenes pulling strings to make problems disappear, and they would have outlandishly claimed that this was the justice system everyone got. 

[reddogblitz]

17 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Actually, the Smollette case simply reinforces the notion that racism is on the run in the USA.  I'd argue if his name was Jussie Fitzgerald Shriver-Kennedy, and her name was Theodore Wadsworth Smitherton we would have seen precisely the same outcome.  Regular shmoes like the rest of us would have shaken our heads at the two-tier justice system, of powerful people behind the scenes pulling strings to make problems disappear, and they would have outlandishly claimed that this was the justice system everyone got. 

 

Exactly. The Smollet case, like the OJ case proves the system works.   A rich black man can get off just like a rich white man.

 

But the Smollet case even goes a step further. It verifies that a rich/famous person can call on rich powerful friends to work the good ole boy network to get off. Only in this case instead of it being white good ole boys, they was all minority women pulling the strings.    Progress.

[Albwan]

I'm dying to see the size of the settlement this jussie idiot gets when the smoke clears.

[row_33]

3 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Exactly. The Smollet case, like the OJ case proves the system works.   A rich black man can get off just like a rich white man.

 

But the Smollet case even goes a step further. It verifies that a rich/famous person can call on rich powerful friends to work the good ole boy network to get off. Only in this case instead of it being white good ole boys, they was all minority women pulling the strings.    Progress.

 

a clown fool stunt is a little less serious than trying to cut off two people's heads in a jealous rage.

 

 

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1116063037176328194

 

[Koko78]

5 hours ago, Foxx said:

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1116063037176328194

 

 

I'm not sure why this would be surprising. Even first year law students know that the first thing you do in a lawsuit is move to dismiss. WaPo isn't going to hire idiots to represent them.