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

[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?

in other words, dcum forum unless you agree with an unproven theory: you are dismissed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

If everything on the phone becomes 'evidence' it gets turned over to both teams of attorneys. Anything could be used to discredit him (or anyone, as I've said NO ONE should give their phone over).

But this is ESPECIALLY relevant considering this guy's level of fame. What if he has a romantic relationship with a celebrity that hasn't come out and some police grunt sells it to TMZ. That shit happens. This particular guy's personal life is actually worth monetary value. No WAY should he hand that phone over. No competent attorney would let him do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

They can do that without seizing his phone. Why do they need to seize his phone if all they need to do is confirm he was on it at that time. Phone company can confirm that, screenshots can prove that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Don’t be logical here. Please.

Somehow police are supposed to find attackers somehow? Not through cooperation with the victim.

Perhaps a good psychic? A crystal ball? Or just arrest some random citizens that were spotted from behind on a camera?

American justice never sleeps!

[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.

They shouldn't hand over their phones. If the police get a warrant, they will get the phones then.

It is like people don't even read the news.

Remember the black accountant in Dallas who was shot by a white police woman who tried to force her way in to HIS apartment (thinking it was her own). Police later search his apartment (WHY?????) and find a small amount of marijuana, and send that right out to all the news agencies on the day of his funeral. http://www.fox4news.com/news/search-warrant-marijuana-found-in-botham-jeans-apartment-after-deadly-shooting

[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:

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!

Honestly I hope you never need to interact with the police because you are VERY naive. Never talk to the police without an attorney present. NEVER let your kids do it. Reporting the initial crime is one thing, but if they are investigating, have counsel. Anything you say can and will be used against you...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

If everything on the phone becomes 'evidence' it gets turned over to both teams of attorneys. Anything could be used to discredit him (or anyone, as I've said NO ONE should give their phone over).

But this is ESPECIALLY relevant considering this guy's level of fame. What if he has a romantic relationship with a celebrity that hasn't come out and some police grunt sells it to TMZ. That shit happens. This particular guy's personal life is actually worth monetary value. No WAY should he hand that phone over. No competent attorney would let him do that.

THIS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Don’t be logical here. Please.

Somehow police are supposed to find attackers somehow? Not through cooperation with the victim.

Perhaps a good psychic? A crystal ball? Or just arrest some random citizens that were spotted from behind on a camera?

American justice never sleeps!

Explain how giving the police physical custody of the phone and all of its contents helps them find the attacker?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

If everything on the phone becomes 'evidence' it gets turned over to both teams of attorneys. Anything could be used to discredit him (or anyone, as I've said NO ONE should give their phone over).

But this is ESPECIALLY relevant considering this guy's level of fame. What if he has a romantic relationship with a celebrity that hasn't come out and some police grunt sells it to TMZ. That shit happens. This particular guy's personal life is actually worth monetary value. No WAY should he hand that phone over. No competent attorney would let him do that.

This guy is barely a celebrity blip and if his relationship takes precedence over his safety he’s crazy.

Count me down as not wanting to be beat up vs my non illegal relationship maybe being exposed.

If there’s evidence it’s a hoax bring it. Detectives have real crime victims to help. They don’t need to play games with a “celebrity.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Don’t be logical here. Please.

Somehow police are supposed to find attackers somehow? Not through cooperation with the victim.

Perhaps a good psychic? A crystal ball? Or just arrest some random citizens that were spotted from behind on a camera?

American justice never sleeps!

Explain how giving the police physical custody of the phone and all of its contents helps them find the attacker?

Pinpoint exact area with gps where attack took place and search cameras with specific knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

If everything on the phone becomes 'evidence' it gets turned over to both teams of attorneys. Anything could be used to discredit him (or anyone, as I've said NO ONE should give their phone over).

But this is ESPECIALLY relevant considering this guy's level of fame. What if he has a romantic relationship with a celebrity that hasn't come out and some police grunt sells it to TMZ. That shit happens. This particular guy's personal life is actually worth monetary value. No WAY should he hand that phone over. No competent attorney would let him do that.

This guy is barely a celebrity blip and if his relationship takes precedence over his safety he’s crazy.

Count me down as not wanting to be beat up vs my non illegal relationship maybe being exposed.

If there’s evidence it’s a hoax bring it. Detectives have real crime victims to help. They don’t need to play games with a “celebrity.”

You are out of touch if you think he is a "celebrity blip" - and at this point, he has ALREADY BEEN beat up. Handing over the phone just means that his conversations, pictures, etc WILL BE LEAKED. It won't keep him from being beat up! That already happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Don’t be logical here. Please.

Somehow police are supposed to find attackers somehow? Not through cooperation with the victim.

Perhaps a good psychic? A crystal ball? Or just arrest some random citizens that were spotted from behind on a camera?

American justice never sleeps!

Explain how giving the police physical custody of the phone and all of its contents helps them find the attacker?

How do you know if the two aren't connected if his communications were part of the crime? Anyone can be set up! And if you're famous, you're more of a target.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Don’t be logical here. Please.

Somehow police are supposed to find attackers somehow? Not through cooperation with the victim.

Perhaps a good psychic? A crystal ball? Or just arrest some random citizens that were spotted from behind on a camera?

American justice never sleeps!

Explain how giving the police physical custody of the phone and all of its contents helps them find the attacker?

Pinpoint exact area with gps where attack took place and search cameras with specific knowledge.

Don't need physical custody of the phone for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Don’t be logical here. Please.

Somehow police are supposed to find attackers somehow? Not through cooperation with the victim.

Perhaps a good psychic? A crystal ball? Or just arrest some random citizens that were spotted from behind on a camera?

American justice never sleeps!

Explain how giving the police physical custody of the phone and all of its contents helps them find the attacker?

They are going to have Penelope Garcia triangulate all the OTHER cell phone pings in that part of Chicago that night so they can find the attackers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

If everything on the phone becomes 'evidence' it gets turned over to both teams of attorneys. Anything could be used to discredit him (or anyone, as I've said NO ONE should give their phone over).

But this is ESPECIALLY relevant considering this guy's level of fame. What if he has a romantic relationship with a celebrity that hasn't come out and some police grunt sells it to TMZ. That shit happens. This particular guy's personal life is actually worth monetary value. No WAY should he hand that phone over. No competent attorney would let him do that.

This guy is barely a celebrity blip and if his relationship takes precedence over his safety he’s crazy.

Count me down as not wanting to be beat up vs my non illegal relationship maybe being exposed.

If there’s evidence it’s a hoax bring it. Detectives have real crime victims to help. They don’t need to play games with a “celebrity.”

You are out of touch if you think he is a "celebrity blip" - and at this point, he has ALREADY BEEN beat up. Handing over the phone just means that his conversations, pictures, etc WILL BE LEAKED. It won't keep him from being beat up! That already happened.

Yet the attackers are still around and free to target him or others again.