• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

'Empire' Star Jussie Smollett Attacked in Possible Hate Crime (Update: All Charges Dropped. Records Sealed. Chicago Mayor Not Happy.)

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
16,122
27,409
1,415
Australia
She even mentioned this as an example to push her bill very early on.
I have a feeling that T teacupcopter has locked himself away in an echo chamber for a while and is shocked by all the new info that runs completely counter to the narrative. It’s all good though as long as he’s willing to consider that he’s been lied to in the past.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,934
15,988
855
A presidential conspiracy to protect some no name actor? Why?
we only have conjecture at this point. We do know he had deep links to Harris via Foxx and others, and knew about Harris’ Lynching Bill. It is not outside the realm of possibility that he undertook this ill fated adventure to gain support for this Bill.

Consider this simple enigma:

1. Harris had a Lynching bill, wanted to run for president, and wanted landmark legislation under her belt.

2. She knew Smollet personally, and knew he knew about her legislation.

3. the second this hoax happened, she jumped on board supporting him

don’t you thinI,given the obvious issues with his claims, her first thought might be ‘oh no. What did jussie do?”and stay quiet? Instead, she and booker (also connected to legislation) ran full speed with the hoaxiest of hoaxes.

meanwhile, nearly everyone involved was connected to Harris. Foxx, for example, was mentored by Harris. And all were connected to Obama as well.

possibly all a coincidence. But even if, don’t you think Harris should have realized instantly something was fishy when her activist friend supporting a lynching bill suddenly got ‘lynched’.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
27,271
31,987
1,170
we only have conjecture at this point. We do know he had deep links to Harris via Foxx and others, and knew about Harris’ Lynching Bill. It is not outside the realm of possibility that he undertook this ill fated adventure to gain support for this Bill.

Consider this simple enigma:

1. Harris had a Lynching bill, wanted to run for president, and wanted landmark legislation under her belt.

2. She knew Smollet personally, and knew he knew about her legislation.

3. the second this hoax happened, she jumped on board supporting him

don’t you thinI,given the obvious issues with his claims, her first thought might be ‘oh no. What did jussie do?”and stay quiet? Instead, she and booker (also connected to legislation) ran full speed with the hoaxiest of hoaxes.

meanwhile, nearly everyone involved was connected to Harris. Foxx, for example, was mentored by Harris. And all were connected to Obama as well.

possibly all a coincidence. But even if, don’t you think Harris should have realized instantly something was fishy when her activist friend supporting a lynching bill suddenly got ‘lynched’.
The woman is always been known for blowing things.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,934
15,988
855
What exactly is the anti lynching bill? Was/is lynching legal and being used as a loophole for racist crimes?
I've linked to it within this thread somewhere.

It's absurd. It is not about lynching as anyone thinks of it. It is about any group attack whatsoever that can possibly be linked to hate.

Screw it, let me dig it up...

Ҥ 250. Lynching
“(a) In General.—

“(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.—If 2 or more persons willfully cause bodily injury to any other person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—

“(A) each shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if bodily injury results from the offense; or

“(B) each shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if death results from the offense or if the offense includes kidnapping or aggravated sexual abuse.

“(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—If 2 or more persons, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully cause bodily injury to any other person because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person—

“(i) each shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if bodily injury results from the offense; or

“(ii) each shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if death results from the offense or if the offense includes kidnapping or aggravated sexual abuse.
So... basically, they have redefined any attack by 2 or more people on a protected class that is construed as because of their status as 'lynching'. Which fits neither the actual definition of lynching [extrajudicial punishment] nor the colloquial definition [hanging].

Basically, an over reaching 'hate crime' bill.
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
16,122
27,409
1,415
Australia
I've linked to it within this thread somewhere.

It's absurd. It is not about lynching as anyone thinks of it. It is about any group attack whatsoever that can possibly be linked to hate.

Screw it, let me dig it up...



So... basically, they have redefined any attack by 2 or more people on a protected class that is construed as because of their status as 'lynching'. Which fits neither the actual definition of lynching [extrajudicial punishment] nor the colloquial definition [hanging].

Basically, an over reaching 'hate crime' bill.
The bill was passed wasn't it?
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Tesseract

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,934
15,988
855
The bill was passed wasn't it?
Passed by the Senate on Feb 14th, just two weeks after this thread was started. That's amazing timing isn't it.

From what i can tell, It still needs to be passed in the House, which is increasingly unlikely as time passes.

Maybe they're scared they'll all get arrested for lynching Trump during these impeachment hearings.
 

zeorhymer

Gold Member
Nov 9, 2013
1,991
1,492
725
San Francisco, CA
Passed by the Senate on Feb 14th, just two weeks after this thread was started. That's amazing timing isn't it.

From what i can tell, It still needs to be passed in the House, which is increasingly unlikely as time passes.

Maybe they're scared they'll all get arrested for lynching Trump during these impeachment hearings.
From the reading of the bill...it can swing both ways. A white guy gets beat up by hispanic folks or a white girl gets into a brawl with black girls.

Funny how lynching people carries same sentence as voluntary manslaughter.
 

Grinchy

Member
Aug 3, 2010
22,460
5,714
1,090
In a cave outside of Whooville.
I've linked to it within this thread somewhere.

It's absurd. It is not about lynching as anyone thinks of it. It is about any group attack whatsoever that can possibly be linked to hate.

Screw it, let me dig it up...



So... basically, they have redefined any attack by 2 or more people on a protected class that is construed as because of their status as 'lynching'. Which fits neither the actual definition of lynching [extrajudicial punishment] nor the colloquial definition [hanging].

Basically, an over reaching 'hate crime' bill.
Yeah, I was gonna dig this up myself but got too lazy. It's a crazy and broad definition.

My (evil) hopes were that 2 black guys would attack a white guy and say whitebread or something during the attack so that black men could be the first people charged with lynching under the new definition. It would have really cemented our clown world status.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,934
15,988
855
From the reading of the bill...it can swing both ways. A white guy gets beat up by hispanic folks or a white girl gets into a brawl with black girls.

Funny how lynching people carries same sentence as voluntary manslaughter.
Yup.

A crime is already a crime. If X violently attacks Y with a bat, I don't care whether he was yelling '[ethnic/racial slur]', 'asshole', or 'capitalist scum'. Put 'em away. The last thing we need is institutionalizing different levels of justice depending on the color of your skin or who you sleep with based on motive interpretation. Hell, that arguably strips away the first, since you'll get additional time for saying the wrong words.

And to be clear, I'm not condoning racially charged attacks. Put them away. But put away politically charged attackers too. And random ones. And financially motivated ones.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
16,122
27,409
1,415
Australia
Passed by the Senate on Feb 14th, just two weeks after this thread was started. That's amazing timing isn't it.

From what i can tell, It still needs to be passed in the House, which is increasingly unlikely as time passes.

Maybe they're scared they'll all get arrested for lynching Trump during these impeachment hearings.
I wonder what the hold up is 🤔
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,934
15,988
855
There are tons of documented cases of racially motivated hate crimes that go unreported by the mainstream media because the victim and perps are the wrong color. It’s just another example why the media cannot be trusted.
There are also countless more stories of police doing good than doing harm, but we'll never, ever, hear them.
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
2,859
4,136
435
There are also countless more stories of police doing good than doing harm, but we'll never, ever, hear them.
Absolutely. It’s clearly an agenda.: pit the sides against each other and marginalize the cops. Sow chaos and discord. I’ve been seeing videos going around of mobs spraying cops with water in New York and that behavior is directly attributable to the two pronged attack of the leftist media and the leftist political movement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: matt404au

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
27,271
31,987
1,170
Absolutely. It’s clearly an agenda.: pit the sides against each other and marginalize the cops. Sow chaos and discord. I’ve been seeing videos going around of mobs spraying cops with water in New York and that behavior is directly attributable to the two pronged attack of the leftist media and the leftist political movement.
Create the problem, then provide the “solution”, comrade.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,934
15,988
855
How can you say the media didn't "highlight" this hate crime, when you quoted an article from the "mainstream" New York Post.🤷🏾‍
Highlight vs. Mention are two different things.

Google: Jennifer agostini attacked

Tell me how many pages it takes till you get to a cnn article, or nbc, or really, anything other than nypost and the sun [which isnt even domestic news] or a conservative news site

Heck, i up the challenge

Google: jennifer agostini attacked cnn

And tell me how long till you see a cnn article on it.

The story was ignored, period.
 
Last edited:

undrtakr900

Member
Oct 30, 2007
1,445
26
1,010
34
Highlight vs. Mention are two different things.

Google: Jennifer agostini attacked

Tell me how many pages it takes till you get to a cnn article, or nbc, or really, anything other than nypost and the sun [which isnt even domestic news] or a conservative news site

Heck, i up the challenge

Google: jennifer agostini attacked cnn

And tell me how long till you see a cnn article on it.

The story was ignored, period.
The fact that CNN wrote an article about jennifer agostini, by definition means that it wasn't "ignored".

Also, Google's search results order is determined by their "algorithm"; CNN has no control over it, so you can't blame CNN because their article wasn't on the first page results.
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: Ornlu

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,934
15,988
855
The fact that CNN wrote an article about jennifer agostini, by definition means that it wasn't "ignored".

Also, Google's search results order is determined by their "algorithm"; CNN has no control over it, so you can't blame CNN because their article wasn't on the first page results.
Did they though?

Google: jennifer agostini attacked site:cnn.com

Still not seeing it... [which is how i know you didn't even bother to look, btw]

And yes, a cnn article on a subject will show up early. But it's clear you are here to be disingenuous, for clearly this has all the weight of a hate crime Smollet's case never did, yet none of the coverage.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ornlu

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
668
697
335
Just to add something to the topic, here's a very good video about the backgrounds, psychology etc.:

The channel of this guy is highly recommendable. He covers and analyze crimes (murder etc.), police work and more from a psychological point of view with lots of original footage etc.. Just check his cases of Chris Watts and others. You can learn A LOT from his videos.
 
Last edited:

GreyHorace

Member
Jun 14, 2019
812
1,930
515
Just to add something to the topic, here's a very good video about the backgrounds, psychology etc.:

The channel of this guy is highly recommendable. He covers and analyze crimes (murder etc.), police work and more from a psychological point of view with lots of original footage etc.. Just check his cases of Chris Watts and others. You can learn A LOT from his videos.
Just watched this. Oh man this is fucking hilarious. So Juicy released a single and video with a similar theme and message to Childish Gambino's This is America? All two months before the latter? So this whole stunt was because he wanted the thunder that Donald Glover seemingly stole from him?

What a fucking loser. I really hope they nail him this time.
 

Grinchy

Member
Aug 3, 2010
22,460
5,714
1,090
In a cave outside of Whooville.
The FBI must be too busy with important shit to analyze that damn letter. They could nail him for sending that to himself.

I'm no lawyer, is sending an unknown powder substance with a threat on someone's life through the USPS a crime? Is it a crime if the someone you're sending it to is yourself?
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: matt404au

Cravis

Gold Member
Aug 18, 2006
889
963
1,350
All it’ll take is for him to do that to a CWP carrying conservative and then we will have one less hate spewing lefty to worry about.