Hoax: Hate crime attackers: "This is MAGA country."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread reminds me of that “blue dress gold dress” photo. How so many people can read the same reporting and walk away with two totally different conclusions is bizarre.

It’s too early to tell either way. Wait for facts.

Hint: if you don’t want to be an a$$hole, believe the victim until you hear otherwise.

Questioning doesn't make you an a**hole. It means you simply have questions b/c you want to discover the truth. Sheeple don't question; they follow with blinders on.

There are two sides to every story. That's why we have defense lawyers and prosecutors. In theory, both sides are innocent until proven guilty. So those two men caught on tape could be completely innocent, too.

People are only questioning b/c there are quite a few holes in this story. It doesn't mean Smollet is lying, but it also doesn't mean he's sharing the ENTIRE truth.

Yeah, it does make you an a**hole. When you hear the story and you are like, he is clearly lying because Subway closes at 11!!!! Or he is clearly lying because police asked for surveillance video and no one has a video of the attack! Yeah, you are an a**hole.

Just own it.

I must be an a**hole then. Here are my questions:

1. How did these attackers know this man would be out in the neighborhood at 2:00 am? Were they waiting for hours, in the cold, with a bottle of some liquid and a rope?
2. With all the cameras, one would think at least one would show the attack. They still can't find it. Smollett has been unable to identify the exact place of the attack, according to reports.
3. How did these attackers know this was Smollett if he was dressed for the weather? He would have been bundled up and hard to recognize.
4. Why did Smollett wait 40 min. to call police?
5. Why didn't Smollett initially tell police what the attackers said? This was reported in a subsequent interview with him, although TMZ had it in their first report. The inconsistencies here are disturbing.
6. Smollett may have good reasons for not wanting to give police his phone, but if it were me, I would want to do everything I could to find the attackers.

Just a few of my questions.
Signed, A**hole.

Thanks for responding!

- Original A**hole

Awwww - a$$hole circle jerk time!

You've offered nothing of value to these posts, yet you seem fascinated with connecting our observations to a group (or paired) sexual activity.

We're not the ones with problems, hon.

Oh - I assumed you got off on tearing down victims. No? Just for fun then?

You keep proving my point, genius.

Asking questions or making observations is not the same as "tearing down" victims. Good lawyers ask questions all the time. If we were debating in school (I think you may have been asleep during this unit.), I would want to find your weak points or the holes in your thinking.

Why? you ask . . . b/c it's my way of finding out how well prepared you are (or aren't) and whether you're using faulty reasoning to support your point

So during a crime investigation, I would expect questioning from both sides. In this case, the victim CALLED for support. You can't expect the police to get to the heart of the matter if they don't investigate, and THAT translates into researching through questioning and analysis of evidence.

But I guess I'm one to "tear down" a victim during my circle jerk time, eh?

I'm just a DCUM random. I'm not the detective or prosecutor. This wasn't a family member of mine. It doesn't impact my life. Most importantly, I don't have all of the facts.

You are purely speculating and, yes, you are tearing down the victim. Why do that? It must bring you some kind of sick pleasure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread reminds me of that “blue dress gold dress” photo. How so many people can read the same reporting and walk away with two totally different conclusions is bizarre.

It’s too early to tell either way. Wait for facts.

Hint: if you don’t want to be an a$$hole, believe the victim until you hear otherwise.

Questioning doesn't make you an a**hole. It means you simply have questions b/c you want to discover the truth. Sheeple don't question; they follow with blinders on.

There are two sides to every story. That's why we have defense lawyers and prosecutors. In theory, both sides are innocent until proven guilty. So those two men caught on tape could be completely innocent, too.

People are only questioning b/c there are quite a few holes in this story. It doesn't mean Smollet is lying, but it also doesn't mean he's sharing the ENTIRE truth.

Yeah, it does make you an a**hole. When you hear the story and you are like, he is clearly lying because Subway closes at 11!!!! Or he is clearly lying because police asked for surveillance video and no one has a video of the attack! Yeah, you are an a**hole.

Just own it.

I must be an a**hole then. Here are my questions:

1. How did these attackers know this man would be out in the neighborhood at 2:00 am? Were they waiting for hours, in the cold, with a bottle of some liquid and a rope?
2. With all the cameras, one would think at least one would show the attack. They still can't find it. Smollett has been unable to identify the exact place of the attack, according to reports.
3. How did these attackers know this was Smollett if he was dressed for the weather? He would have been bundled up and hard to recognize.
4. Why did Smollett wait 40 min. to call police?
5. Why didn't Smollett initially tell police what the attackers said? This was reported in a subsequent interview with him, although TMZ had it in their first report. The inconsistencies here are disturbing.
6. Smollett may have good reasons for not wanting to give police his phone, but if it were me, I would want to do everything I could to find the attackers.

Just a few of my questions.
Signed, A**hole.

Thanks for responding!

- Original A**hole

Awwww - a$$hole circle jerk time!

You've offered nothing of value to these posts, yet you seem fascinated with connecting our observations to a group (or paired) sexual activity.

We're not the ones with problems, hon.

Oh - I assumed you got off on tearing down victims. No? Just for fun then?

No evidence this man is a victim and now he is obstructing the investigation.

Bet you got a woody just typing that out. Right? If not, why are you so intent on tearing him down?

Because helping police find the men who attacked you makes sense.

If you are a victim and don’t cooperate how will police bring you justice?

Do you think you are helping the police here? FBI going to call you any minute to get your advice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Based on the reported facts, the subject line of this thread is correct.

So, according to the article, he was on the phone during the attack:

Brandon Z. Moore, Smollett's music manager, said he was on the phone with the actor when he heard some of the attack, and heard the words "MAGA country." "I heard that clearly. I heard the scuffle and I heard the racial slur," Moore told Variety.

The subject line is accurate based on this bit of evidence . . . ok.

However, the entire situation is still odd, especially since he refuses to turn over his phone.

+1

You are physically attacked, assaulted, attacked for you race and sexuality, but won’t turn over your phone?

It just screams hoax.

The phone is not an important detail. I wouldn't give my phone to the police if I didn't have to.

So . . . if someone put a "not-a-noose" rope around your neck, supposedly dragged you and yelled homophobic slurs at you, you'd keep your phone, too.

ok . . .

Then you, too, would have something to hide. If the dude's life was at stake, the phone would mean very little to him. Furthermore, if he's an actor, he has money for another phone. And at this point, I would think MOST people would at least change their number.

Y'all are very trusting of the police.

As a white woman, maybe I am. Is that the angle you're taking?

I am a white woman - and I posted above that my dh (an attorney) would not let me hand my phone over to the police in this situation. All they need is the time of the call and they could use a screen shot I text them for that. It isn't about buying a phone. It is about the huge amount of personal data on the phone that is irrelevant to this attack.

Not all attorneys would agree with your husband first of all.

But based on MY perspective, my cell phone is my personal phone. I don't use it for work. I don't send my husband pictures of my breasts. I don't send threatening texts to contacts. And if some ding dong in the police department wants to steal my contacts and text them emojis all day long, he'd get bored eventually b/c we're mainly a bunch of 40 and 50 yo women who don't "thrill" easily.

So since I don't have anything to hide, I'd turn over my phone, especially if someone threw at me threatening, racially-charged words or statements. I would WANT that person (or people) to be caught.

So at some point, victims have to trust the police to do what's right.

This young man, however, is not sharing the entire story. And if it's a hook up gone bad, he still needs to share his story as a warning to others.

Another affluent white woman here who would never herself or allow her children to hand over a cell phone to the police without a warrant. I also don't sext my husband or have anything untoward on there, but I'm not giving up my privacy without a warrant. And I'm not going to allow myself or my kids to inadvertently hand them evidence that they could use against us now or in the future.

Seriously pp never do this, any reputable defense attorney would tell you this. Innocent people go to jail all the time.

So now a crime victim should not cooperate with police and needs a defense attorney for being attacked?

You know that’s nonsense.

If you are attacked and you call police, they request phone to help find your attackers, suddenly the police are out to get you?

Don’t blame police for this. If you are attacked you’d do anything to find the monsters who attacked you.

His phone is evidence. It’s necessary as he was using it as he was being assualted.

Pretzel logic 101.

Its smart. Cops are out to convict. I am being serious. NEVER give the police your phone without a warrant. I hope you aren't in that situation ever but the whole, 'I have nothing to hide so why not' thing gets people in A LOT of trouble. Do not believe they police are looking out for your best interest, anyone who has interacted with the criminal justice system knows this isn't true.

The police do not need my personal information to investigate who attacked me. I am already a victim in this scenario, I will not become one twice over by handing over evidence that could be used to discredit me fairly or unfairly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s what I thought. The police could use his phone to pinpoint the specific area he was attacked. They could use that info to find security cameras.

Why he won’t allow that is crazy. It only leads to speculation it’s a hoax.

If he truly was attacked he’d help the police in anyway possible.

He’s hiding something.

If it were two 26 year old white males who had been in the area at that time refusing to hand over the phones to police I wonder what the DCUM left would think. Probably that the police are not to be trusted and what's on the phone is irrelevant to the investigation anyway, I'm assuming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread reminds me of that “blue dress gold dress” photo. How so many people can read the same reporting and walk away with two totally different conclusions is bizarre.

It’s too early to tell either way. Wait for facts.

Hint: if you don’t want to be an a$$hole, believe the victim until you hear otherwise.

Questioning doesn't make you an a**hole. It means you simply have questions b/c you want to discover the truth. Sheeple don't question; they follow with blinders on.

There are two sides to every story. That's why we have defense lawyers and prosecutors. In theory, both sides are innocent until proven guilty. So those two men caught on tape could be completely innocent, too.

People are only questioning b/c there are quite a few holes in this story. It doesn't mean Smollet is lying, but it also doesn't mean he's sharing the ENTIRE truth.

Yeah, it does make you an a**hole. When you hear the story and you are like, he is clearly lying because Subway closes at 11!!!! Or he is clearly lying because police asked for surveillance video and no one has a video of the attack! Yeah, you are an a**hole.

Just own it.

I must be an a**hole then. Here are my questions:

1. How did these attackers know this man would be out in the neighborhood at 2:00 am? Were they waiting for hours, in the cold, with a bottle of some liquid and a rope?
2. With all the cameras, one would think at least one would show the attack. They still can't find it. Smollett has been unable to identify the exact place of the attack, according to reports.
3. How did these attackers know this was Smollett if he was dressed for the weather? He would have been bundled up and hard to recognize.
4. Why did Smollett wait 40 min. to call police?
5. Why didn't Smollett initially tell police what the attackers said? This was reported in a subsequent interview with him, although TMZ had it in their first report. The inconsistencies here are disturbing.
6. Smollett may have good reasons for not wanting to give police his phone, but if it were me, I would want to do everything I could to find the attackers.

Just a few of my questions.
Signed, A**hole.

Thanks for responding!

- Original A**hole

Awwww - a$$hole circle jerk time!

You've offered nothing of value to these posts, yet you seem fascinated with connecting our observations to a group (or paired) sexual activity.

We're not the ones with problems, hon.

Oh - I assumed you got off on tearing down victims. No? Just for fun then?

You keep proving my point, genius.

Asking questions or making observations is not the same as "tearing down" victims. Good lawyers ask questions all the time. If we were debating in school (I think you may have been asleep during this unit.), I would want to find your weak points or the holes in your thinking.

Why? you ask . . . b/c it's my way of finding out how well prepared you are (or aren't) and whether you're using faulty reasoning to support your point

So during a crime investigation, I would expect questioning from both sides. In this case, the victim CALLED for support. You can't expect the police to get to the heart of the matter if they don't investigate, and THAT translates into researching through questioning and analysis of evidence.

But I guess I'm one to "tear down" a victim during my circle jerk time, eh?

And you are on the job?

Sounds like it. Nobody use the red phone. The FBI might call PP on it any minute now to get his advice!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread reminds me of that “blue dress gold dress” photo. How so many people can read the same reporting and walk away with two totally different conclusions is bizarre.

It’s too early to tell either way. Wait for facts.

Hint: if you don’t want to be an a$$hole, believe the victim until you hear otherwise.

Questioning doesn't make you an a**hole. It means you simply have questions b/c you want to discover the truth. Sheeple don't question; they follow with blinders on.

There are two sides to every story. That's why we have defense lawyers and prosecutors. In theory, both sides are innocent until proven guilty. So those two men caught on tape could be completely innocent, too.

People are only questioning b/c there are quite a few holes in this story. It doesn't mean Smollet is lying, but it also doesn't mean he's sharing the ENTIRE truth.

Yeah, it does make you an a**hole. When you hear the story and you are like, he is clearly lying because Subway closes at 11!!!! Or he is clearly lying because police asked for surveillance video and no one has a video of the attack! Yeah, you are an a**hole.

Just own it.

I must be an a**hole then. Here are my questions:

1. How did these attackers know this man would be out in the neighborhood at 2:00 am? Were they waiting for hours, in the cold, with a bottle of some liquid and a rope?
2. With all the cameras, one would think at least one would show the attack. They still can't find it. Smollett has been unable to identify the exact place of the attack, according to reports.
3. How did these attackers know this was Smollett if he was dressed for the weather? He would have been bundled up and hard to recognize.
4. Why did Smollett wait 40 min. to call police?
5. Why didn't Smollett initially tell police what the attackers said? This was reported in a subsequent interview with him, although TMZ had it in their first report. The inconsistencies here are disturbing.
6. Smollett may have good reasons for not wanting to give police his phone, but if it were me, I would want to do everything I could to find the attackers.

Just a few of my questions.
Signed, A**hole.

Thanks for responding!

- Original A**hole

Awwww - a$$hole circle jerk time!

You've offered nothing of value to these posts, yet you seem fascinated with connecting our observations to a group (or paired) sexual activity.

We're not the ones with problems, hon.

Oh - I assumed you got off on tearing down victims. No? Just for fun then?

You keep proving my point, genius.

Asking questions or making observations is not the same as "tearing down" victims. Good lawyers ask questions all the time. If we were debating in school (I think you may have been asleep during this unit.), I would want to find your weak points or the holes in your thinking.

Why? you ask . . . b/c it's my way of finding out how well prepared you are (or aren't) and whether you're using faulty reasoning to support your point

So during a crime investigation, I would expect questioning from both sides. In this case, the victim CALLED for support. You can't expect the police to get to the heart of the matter if they don't investigate, and THAT translates into researching through questioning and analysis of evidence.

But I guess I'm one to "tear down" a victim during my circle jerk time, eh?

And you are on the job?

Sounds like it. Nobody use the red phone. The FBI might call PP on it any minute now to get his advice!!!

DCUM's super secret FBI hotline:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We saw this with Ford's hearing too. People looking for any inconsistencies that would, to them, disprove her story. The name of the grocery store, where she saw squiggy or whatever his nickname was, for example.

Right here on this board people were saying stuff like she must be lying [about the attack] because there weren't any grocery stores called that at the time.

It was a view in to the mind's of misogynists that I could have lived without.

(spoiler, she was right about the store name)

Yes, they are too quick to tear down. They do it for ulterior motives, not "the truth".

You obtain the truth through questioning. If there are holes, you ask questions related to that missing information.

Why is this so hard to understand? It's part of the CRITICAL THINKING process you should have fine tuned in school.

You are missing the point. Are you the police detective? Are you on the jury?

There is a difference between asking about inconsistencies and insisting that the attack was fabricated or the result of a "hookup gone bad." One is fine, one is NOT FINE. It is NOT OKAY AT ALL. Can you see the difference?

Then hand over the phone! If you're innocent and YOU reported the crime, why would you withhold potential evidence that could help capture criminals?

How are we to blame - as citizens - by asking questions and making observations about a case? The media is the first to blame people. (Look at the Covington situation where, depending upon the angle media took, any group was either innocent or guilty.)

In this case, they reported a story that initially had inaccurate information. As recipients of the news, we're NOT to formulate questions or observations based on the evidence provided?

Then why share the story with us? This isn't Communist Russia 1950.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s what I thought. The police could use his phone to pinpoint the specific area he was attacked. They could use that info to find security cameras.

Why he won’t allow that is crazy. It only leads to speculation it’s a hoax.

If he truly was attacked he’d help the police in anyway possible.

He’s hiding something.

If it were two 26 year old white males who had been in the area at that time refusing to hand over the phones to police I wonder what the DCUM left would think. Probably that the police are not to be trusted and what's on the phone is irrelevant to the investigation anyway, I'm assuming.

omg

You are beyond ridiculous.

I am a WHITE woman who would hand over her phone. We're all the same, I guess . . . right?

[Anonymous]

So now being assaulted and calling police is ok.

But if no evidence is found and the police need more it’s dangerous and they are going to charge the victim with phone info?

Anyone who thinks that his phone isn’t an important piece of evidence is insane.

I don’t think only the fbi or LE are aware that phones help investigators solve cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread reminds me of that “blue dress gold dress” photo. How so many people can read the same reporting and walk away with two totally different conclusions is bizarre.

It’s too early to tell either way. Wait for facts.

Hint: if you don’t want to be an a$$hole, believe the victim until you hear otherwise.

Questioning doesn't make you an a**hole. It means you simply have questions b/c you want to discover the truth. Sheeple don't question; they follow with blinders on.

There are two sides to every story. That's why we have defense lawyers and prosecutors. In theory, both sides are innocent until proven guilty. So those two men caught on tape could be completely innocent, too.

People are only questioning b/c there are quite a few holes in this story. It doesn't mean Smollet is lying, but it also doesn't mean he's sharing the ENTIRE truth.

Yeah, it does make you an a**hole. When you hear the story and you are like, he is clearly lying because Subway closes at 11!!!! Or he is clearly lying because police asked for surveillance video and no one has a video of the attack! Yeah, you are an a**hole.

Just own it.

I must be an a**hole then. Here are my questions:

1. How did these attackers know this man would be out in the neighborhood at 2:00 am? Were they waiting for hours, in the cold, with a bottle of some liquid and a rope?
2. With all the cameras, one would think at least one would show the attack. They still can't find it. Smollett has been unable to identify the exact place of the attack, according to reports.
3. How did these attackers know this was Smollett if he was dressed for the weather? He would have been bundled up and hard to recognize.
4. Why did Smollett wait 40 min. to call police?
5. Why didn't Smollett initially tell police what the attackers said? This was reported in a subsequent interview with him, although TMZ had it in their first report. The inconsistencies here are disturbing.
6. Smollett may have good reasons for not wanting to give police his phone, but if it were me, I would want to do everything I could to find the attackers.

Just a few of my questions.
Signed, A**hole.

Thanks for responding!

- Original A**hole

Awwww - a$$hole circle jerk time!

You've offered nothing of value to these posts, yet you seem fascinated with connecting our observations to a group (or paired) sexual activity.

We're not the ones with problems, hon.

Oh - I assumed you got off on tearing down victims. No? Just for fun then?

No evidence this man is a victim and now he is obstructing the investigation.

Bet you got a woody just typing that out. Right? If not, why are you so intent on tearing him down?

Because helping police find the men who attacked you makes sense.

If you are a victim and don’t cooperate how will police bring you justice?

You can cooperate and not hand over all your personal information. People look for reasons to discredit victims. He hands over every text message he has sent in the past year, maybe he ends up knowing this person, maybe they had a fight or something. You never know, he doesn't know. You should NEVER allow law enforcement access to information they don't have a right to. And for god's sake make sure your kids know that.

Like I said earlier, I'm an affluent white woman so cops have mostly been nice to me my whole life and I have nothing to hide. I'm a federal employee I haven't even ever had weed. But no way are they getting in my house, in my office, in my phone, or in my car without a warrant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread reminds me of that “blue dress gold dress” photo. How so many people can read the same reporting and walk away with two totally different conclusions is bizarre.

It’s too early to tell either way. Wait for facts.

Hint: if you don’t want to be an a$$hole, believe the victim until you hear otherwise.

Questioning doesn't make you an a**hole. It means you simply have questions b/c you want to discover the truth. Sheeple don't question; they follow with blinders on.

There are two sides to every story. That's why we have defense lawyers and prosecutors. In theory, both sides are innocent until proven guilty. So those two men caught on tape could be completely innocent, too.

People are only questioning b/c there are quite a few holes in this story. It doesn't mean Smollet is lying, but it also doesn't mean he's sharing the ENTIRE truth.

Yeah, it does make you an a**hole. When you hear the story and you are like, he is clearly lying because Subway closes at 11!!!! Or he is clearly lying because police asked for surveillance video and no one has a video of the attack! Yeah, you are an a**hole.

Just own it.

I must be an a**hole then. Here are my questions:

1. How did these attackers know this man would be out in the neighborhood at 2:00 am? Were they waiting for hours, in the cold, with a bottle of some liquid and a rope?
2. With all the cameras, one would think at least one would show the attack. They still can't find it. Smollett has been unable to identify the exact place of the attack, according to reports.
3. How did these attackers know this was Smollett if he was dressed for the weather? He would have been bundled up and hard to recognize.
4. Why did Smollett wait 40 min. to call police?
5. Why didn't Smollett initially tell police what the attackers said? This was reported in a subsequent interview with him, although TMZ had it in their first report. The inconsistencies here are disturbing.
6. Smollett may have good reasons for not wanting to give police his phone, but if it were me, I would want to do everything I could to find the attackers.

Just a few of my questions.
Signed, A**hole.

Thanks for responding!

- Original A**hole

Awwww - a$$hole circle jerk time!

You've offered nothing of value to these posts, yet you seem fascinated with connecting our observations to a group (or paired) sexual activity.

We're not the ones with problems, hon.

Oh - I assumed you got off on tearing down victims. No? Just for fun then?

You keep proving my point, genius.

Asking questions or making observations is not the same as "tearing down" victims. Good lawyers ask questions all the time. If we were debating in school (I think you may have been asleep during this unit.), I would want to find your weak points or the holes in your thinking.

Why? you ask . . . b/c it's my way of finding out how well prepared you are (or aren't) and whether you're using faulty reasoning to support your point

So during a crime investigation, I would expect questioning from both sides. In this case, the victim CALLED for support. You can't expect the police to get to the heart of the matter if they don't investigate, and THAT translates into researching through questioning and analysis of evidence.

But I guess I'm one to "tear down" a victim during my circle jerk time, eh?

And you are on the job?

Sounds like it. Nobody use the red phone. The FBI might call PP on it any minute now to get his advice!!!

DCUM's super secret FBI hotline:

Omg! That’s classified!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread reminds me of that “blue dress gold dress” photo. How so many people can read the same reporting and walk away with two totally different conclusions is bizarre.

It’s too early to tell either way. Wait for facts.

Hint: if you don’t want to be an a$$hole, believe the victim until you hear otherwise.

Questioning doesn't make you an a**hole. It means you simply have questions b/c you want to discover the truth. Sheeple don't question; they follow with blinders on.

There are two sides to every story. That's why we have defense lawyers and prosecutors. In theory, both sides are innocent until proven guilty. So those two men caught on tape could be completely innocent, too.

People are only questioning b/c there are quite a few holes in this story. It doesn't mean Smollet is lying, but it also doesn't mean he's sharing the ENTIRE truth.

Yeah, it does make you an a**hole. When you hear the story and you are like, he is clearly lying because Subway closes at 11!!!! Or he is clearly lying because police asked for surveillance video and no one has a video of the attack! Yeah, you are an a**hole.

Just own it.

I must be an a**hole then. Here are my questions:

1. How did these attackers know this man would be out in the neighborhood at 2:00 am? Were they waiting for hours, in the cold, with a bottle of some liquid and a rope?
2. With all the cameras, one would think at least one would show the attack. They still can't find it. Smollett has been unable to identify the exact place of the attack, according to reports.
3. How did these attackers know this was Smollett if he was dressed for the weather? He would have been bundled up and hard to recognize.
4. Why did Smollett wait 40 min. to call police?
5. Why didn't Smollett initially tell police what the attackers said? This was reported in a subsequent interview with him, although TMZ had it in their first report. The inconsistencies here are disturbing.
6. Smollett may have good reasons for not wanting to give police his phone, but if it were me, I would want to do everything I could to find the attackers.

Just a few of my questions.
Signed, A**hole.

Thanks for responding!

- Original A**hole

Awwww - a$$hole circle jerk time!

You've offered nothing of value to these posts, yet you seem fascinated with connecting our observations to a group (or paired) sexual activity.

We're not the ones with problems, hon.

Oh - I assumed you got off on tearing down victims. No? Just for fun then?

No evidence this man is a victim and now he is obstructing the investigation.

Bet you got a woody just typing that out. Right? If not, why are you so intent on tearing him down?

Because helping police find the men who attacked you makes sense.

If you are a victim and don’t cooperate how will police bring you justice?

You can cooperate and not hand over all your personal information. People look for reasons to discredit victims. He hands over every text message he has sent in the past year, maybe he ends up knowing this person, maybe they had a fight or something. You never know, he doesn't know. You should NEVER allow law enforcement access to information they don't have a right to. And for god's sake make sure your kids know that.

Like I said earlier, I'm an affluent white woman so cops have mostly been nice to me my whole life and I have nothing to hide. I'm a federal employee I haven't even ever had weed. But no way are they getting in my house, in my office, in my phone, or in my car without a warrant.

Ok. If you are assaulted and attacked hang onto that phone, the phone you were on while being attacked.

Don’t let the man get you.

My first though after physical attack would be: f the police!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread reminds me of that “blue dress gold dress” photo. How so many people can read the same reporting and walk away with two totally different conclusions is bizarre.

It’s too early to tell either way. Wait for facts.

Hint: if you don’t want to be an a$$hole, believe the victim until you hear otherwise.

Questioning doesn't make you an a**hole. It means you simply have questions b/c you want to discover the truth. Sheeple don't question; they follow with blinders on.

There are two sides to every story. That's why we have defense lawyers and prosecutors. In theory, both sides are innocent until proven guilty. So those two men caught on tape could be completely innocent, too.

People are only questioning b/c there are quite a few holes in this story. It doesn't mean Smollet is lying, but it also doesn't mean he's sharing the ENTIRE truth.

Yeah, it does make you an a**hole. When you hear the story and you are like, he is clearly lying because Subway closes at 11!!!! Or he is clearly lying because police asked for surveillance video and no one has a video of the attack! Yeah, you are an a**hole.

Just own it.

I must be an a**hole then. Here are my questions:

1. How did these attackers know this man would be out in the neighborhood at 2:00 am? Were they waiting for hours, in the cold, with a bottle of some liquid and a rope?
2. With all the cameras, one would think at least one would show the attack. They still can't find it. Smollett has been unable to identify the exact place of the attack, according to reports.
3. How did these attackers know this was Smollett if he was dressed for the weather? He would have been bundled up and hard to recognize.
4. Why did Smollett wait 40 min. to call police?
5. Why didn't Smollett initially tell police what the attackers said? This was reported in a subsequent interview with him, although TMZ had it in their first report. The inconsistencies here are disturbing.
6. Smollett may have good reasons for not wanting to give police his phone, but if it were me, I would want to do everything I could to find the attackers.

Just a few of my questions.
Signed, A**hole.

Thanks for responding!

- Original A**hole

Awwww - a$$hole circle jerk time!

You've offered nothing of value to these posts, yet you seem fascinated with connecting our observations to a group (or paired) sexual activity.

We're not the ones with problems, hon.

Oh - I assumed you got off on tearing down victims. No? Just for fun then?

You keep proving my point, genius.

Asking questions or making observations is not the same as "tearing down" victims. Good lawyers ask questions all the time. If we were debating in school (I think you may have been asleep during this unit.), I would want to find your weak points or the holes in your thinking.

Why? you ask . . . b/c it's my way of finding out how well prepared you are (or aren't) and whether you're using faulty reasoning to support your point

So during a crime investigation, I would expect questioning from both sides. In this case, the victim CALLED for support. You can't expect the police to get to the heart of the matter if they don't investigate, and THAT translates into researching through questioning and analysis of evidence.

But I guess I'm one to "tear down" a victim during my circle jerk time, eh?

I'm just a DCUM random. I'm not the detective or prosecutor. This wasn't a family member of mine. It doesn't impact my life. Most importantly, I don't have all of the facts.

You are purely speculating and, yes, you are tearing down the victim. Why do that? It must bring you some kind of sick pleasure.

It's a PUBLIC story! How is asking questions tearing down a victim?

How many of you are so quick to tear down each move the PRESIDENTS make (b/c this is ongoing whether or not there's a D or R in office)?

There's a story, and boom - the posts begin. Question after question, observation after observation - How is this any different? People read the news. That's what the news is there for - to inform (although I have my doubts about what's credible and what's not).

Everyone's so easily hurt by questioning. Should I find a safe space for all of you?

[Anonymous]

LOL at all the, presumably, liberals here complaining about people asking questions and making suppositions.

This is what YOU have been doing for the last 2 years with all the RUSSIA! threads.

#Hypocrites

[Anonymous]

On the other hand, if it is a hoax, this is costing the taxpayers lots of money and man hours. If the police want to verify that he was on the phone at the time of the attack, that could confirm part of his story.