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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I really feel alarmed that people here don't know this. I keep repeating it less to defend Smollet who is clearly making the correct decisions but to convince YOU random PP not to turn over your cell phone just because the police asked in some theoretical future event. You should NOT do that, ever, please don't ever do that or encourage a child or family member to do that.

[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:

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.

Disagree. It would show 1) whether he was on the phone with Moore and 2) if he was on the phone, exactly when the attack happened. It could help police narrow their search of video in the area.

[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.

OMG. You are all out VILIFYING this guy. You know, the victim. Why? He's black? He's gay? He said something about MAGA trash?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even if the NSA has everything on my phone local cops don't. And none of you can use it against me in a court of law unless you obtain it legally. So still, don't give your phone up without a warrant and/or consulting with an attorney.

[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:

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.

Police have done that and found zero.

Now to the cell.

Men pouring bleach and screaming MAGA and affixing nooses to people in Chicago? How many times has that happened? The police don’t have anything to compare here.

[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:

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.

Disagree. It would show 1) whether he was on the phone with Moore and 2) if he was on the phone, exactly when the attack happened. It could help police narrow their search of video in the area.

You better get on the phone to the FBI right away and give them your evaluation. I'm sure it will really help the investigation.

[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:

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.

Disagree. It would show 1) whether he was on the phone with Moore and 2) if he was on the phone, exactly when the attack happened. It could help police narrow their search of video in the area.

They do not need physical custody of the phone to determine either of those things.

[Anonymous]

Men pouring bleach and screaming MAGA and affixing nooses to people in Chicago? How many times has that happened? The police don’t have anything to compare here.

Don't give any of the MAGA trash on DCUM any ideas. Next thing you know we'll have a bunch of copycat crimes right here in DC. Or wherever you t**ds live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I really feel alarmed that people here don't know this. I keep repeating it less to defend Smollet who is clearly making the correct decisions but to convince YOU random PP not to turn over your cell phone just because the police asked in some theoretical future event. You should NOT do that, ever, please don't ever do that or encourage a child or family member to do that.

Police will get a warrant and everything you deleted off your phone is available through your cell provider.

Smashing phone won’t work either.

If I were attacked or my family I’d turn my phone over to help police.

Police aren’t looking for his hook ups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I really feel alarmed that people here don't know this. I keep repeating it less to defend Smollet who is clearly making the correct decisions but to convince YOU random PP not to turn over your cell phone just because the police asked in some theoretical future event. You should NOT do that, ever, please don't ever do that or encourage a child or family member to do that.

Police will get a warrant and everything you deleted off your phone is available through your cell provider.

Smashing phone won’t work either.

If I were attacked or my family I’d turn my phone over to help police.

Police aren’t looking for his hook ups.

You are dumb. Seriously. How would they justify seizing the victim's phone unless the victim became a suspect of a crime, in which case even more reason to not turn it over.

[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:

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.

omg - Why can't you think?

If it ISN'T a random attack, there's the possibility that contact was MADE through the use of his cell phone.

EVERYTHING is done on a cell phone these days. posting on social media, texting friends, using dating apps, calling your doctors, receiving alerts . . . Why WOULDN'T they ask for his phone?

[Anonymous]

PP I don't know what to tell you. Police aren't on your side. Seriously. I don't think police are evil, I think most generally want to be helpers. They want to be good people. But they are part of a pretty ruthless system. Don't let yourself be ingested into the system without a lawyer. No one else will be looking out for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP I don't know what to tell you. Police aren't on your side. Seriously. I don't think police are evil, I think most generally want to be helpers. They want to be good people. But they are part of a pretty ruthless system. Don't let yourself be ingested into the system without a lawyer. No one else will be looking out for you.

How can you tell which posters on this forum are related to police?

My son could be a policeman. My daughter could be a policewoman. not true in my case

However, my best friend's husband is a policeman turned detective. My father's best friend was a cop. My friend's son is a policeman.

It's all about perspective. You may believe that police have an agenda, which plays into stereotypes. But that could be said of all people. All lawyers in Big 10 firms are out to get money. All teachers are in the profession b/c of summers off. I could go on and on.

In this case, there are too many holes regarding Smollet's situation, and whatever is holding him back from turning over his phone is probably information that will fill some gaps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP I don't know what to tell you. Police aren't on your side. Seriously. I don't think police are evil, I think most generally want to be helpers. They want to be good people. But they are part of a pretty ruthless system. Don't let yourself be ingested into the system without a lawyer. No one else will be looking out for you.

So he called the police because they aren’t on his side?

Ok, you’ve got me. Now, what body of people will investigate this crime?

The police are definitely out.

The FBI? They will work with local LE.

You aren’t making sense. The only people crime victims have are police.

Somehow he’s not to turn in his phone because he will implicate himself?

Then he’s definitely not a victim.

He’s a co-conspirator and will be found out.

People who have kids disappear or killed or attacked turn in their phone. Police find evidence of affairs, drugs, etc. that’s not important of your safety of the safety of your loved one is at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP I don't know what to tell you. Police aren't on your side. Seriously. I don't think police are evil, I think most generally want to be helpers. They want to be good people. But they are part of a pretty ruthless system. Don't let yourself be ingested into the system without a lawyer. No one else will be looking out for you.

How can you tell which posters on this forum are related to police?

My son could be a policeman. My daughter could be a policewoman. not true in my case

However, my best friend's husband is a policeman turned detective. My father's best friend was a cop. My friend's son is a policeman.

It's all about perspective. You may believe that police have an agenda, which plays into stereotypes. But that could be said of all people. All lawyers in Big 10 firms are out to get money. All teachers are in the profession b/c of summers off. I could go on and on.

In this case, there are too many holes regarding Smollet's situation, and whatever is holding him back from turning over his phone is probably information that will fill some gaps.

Also this guy has lawyers. He’s well represented. If he’s taking legal advice to not turn his phone over it’s because his lawyer knows he’s guilty of a hoax.