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

[Anonymous]

Ok, he’s too private and famous to help police find the men that beat him.

Makes sense.

[Anonymous]

And who cares with whom he's sleeping? Unless there's something illegal about his hook ups, Hollywood loves celebrity hook ups! It makes for some good news.

[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?

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?

It's not the questions as much as the snap conclusions.

Gay guy? Hook-up gone wrong.
Can't find video? Must be hoax.
Didn't hand over phone? Must be guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

I have always said that I'm waiting for the report. Again, I don't have all of the facts. It'd just be speculation.

[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.

+1

Who knows what is on his phone. It's reasonable for him and his attorney to control what information from his phone is shared.

[Anonymous]

If the police get a warrant for his phone they will see everything anyway. Pictures messages websites visited you name it. He’s not going to avoid being found out by denying physical custody of his phone.

He’s just creating more time and manpower used to complete the process.

He’s on borrowed time.

Your info is always accessible, and he’s just created a situation for police to come and get it.

[Anonymous]

Can't he just show the police his phone log of the time of the attack? He doesn't need to surrender his phone.

[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?

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?

It's not the questions as much as the snap conclusions.

Gay guy? Hook-up gone wrong.
Can't find video? Must be hoax.
Didn't hand over phone? Must be guilty.

So what evidence does dcum think can be used to solve this crime?

Be specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can't he just show the police his phone log of the time of the attack? He doesn't need to surrender his phone.

Police will soon have everything and even if he smashes his phone it will still be accessible.

Even if he deletes it, which I am sure he has already.

He’s not very clever and will soon be ruined.

At a great cost to taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the police get a warrant for his phone they will see everything anyway. Pictures messages websites visited you name it. He’s not going to avoid being found out by denying physical custody of his phone.

He’s just creating more time and manpower used to complete the process.

He’s on borrowed time.

Your info is always accessible, and he’s just created a situation for police to come and get it.

Well try their luck. I repeat, I would give this advice to ANYONE no matter how famous/not famous and no matter how innocent they thought they were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't he just show the police his phone log of the time of the attack? He doesn't need to surrender his phone.

Police will soon have everything and even if he smashes his phone it will still be accessible.

Even if he deletes it, which I am sure he has already.

He’s not very clever and will soon be ruined.

At a great cost to taxpayers.

Did the Donald find DCUM??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the police get a warrant for his phone they will see everything anyway. Pictures messages websites visited you name it. He’s not going to avoid being found out by denying physical custody of his phone.

He’s just creating more time and manpower used to complete the process.

He’s on borrowed time.

Your info is always accessible, and he’s just created a situation for police to come and get it.

Well try their luck. I repeat, I would give this advice to ANYONE no matter how famous/not famous and no matter how innocent they thought they were.

Luck has left the building.

It’s not even that complicated.

[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?

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?

It's not the questions as much as the snap conclusions.

Gay guy? Hook-up gone wrong.
Can't find video? Must be hoax.
Didn't hand over phone? Must be guilty.

So what evidence does dcum think can be used to solve this crime?

Be specific.

CC TV footage. Soliciting interviews from other people known to be in the area. Comparing against previous similar crimes etc.

How do you think Smollet's phone is going to help them find these people? If it was a random attack the phone will give no useful information.

[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?

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?

It's not the questions as much as the snap conclusions.

Gay guy? Hook-up gone wrong.
Can't find video? Must be hoax.
Didn't hand over phone? Must be guilty.

So what evidence does dcum think can be used to solve this crime?

Be specific.

Certainly, none of the "evidence" shared on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't he just show the police his phone log of the time of the attack? He doesn't need to surrender his phone.

Police will soon have everything and even if he smashes his phone it will still be accessible.

Even if he deletes it, which I am sure he has already.

He’s not very clever and will soon be ruined.

At a great cost to taxpayers.

Did the Donald find DCUM??

No, someone who used to find out what’s really on a person’s cell.

If you care about privacy don’t have one because with it you are exposed.

Delete don’t work.