Smollett committed a hate crime: change my mind

[em2nought]

This says it better than I could. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 ... should-be/

[pr0ner]

Literally zero original thought went into the OP's post. I'm not surprised.

[Daehawk]

Hep you keep sayin Trump supports as the racial thing...you do understand Smollett charged that they used racial slurs and a noose on him right?

including uttering a racial slur and a noose

...It wasn't just the MAGA crap and homophobic stuff . He accused the attackers of using all four things. I mean he is an ass...but just want the facts out there.

[hepcat]

I deleted my comment. I want no part of this rapidly approaching shit show.

[Alefroth]

Who is the victim?

[Holman]

It was a grift and a scam, but a hate crime? Come the fuck on.

If you're wondering, left/liberal twitter is tearing into Smollett as a liar and a disgrace. He has no supporters.

His stunt is the equivalent of the Backwards B except that I can't recall right-wingers turning on the hoax perpetrator back then.

[Zarathud]

I trust em2 will come out equally as strong against all of the right wing hoaxes and frauds.

...oh, wait...that was a link to breitbart.

Nevermind.

[GreenGoo]

...oh, wait...that was a link to breitbart.

Lol. I was about to post that I thought this must be making the rounds in the usual circles (I didn't see the link) because it's a bizarre and irrational interpretation of what constitutes a hate crime, and then I see that it is, in fact, a breitbart talking point.

Good luck in 2020, America. You're going to need it.

[Skinypupy]

change my mind

Unlikely.

On anything.

Ever.

[Jaymann]

Here is the Wikipedia definition of a hate crime:

A hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime or bias crime) is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership (or perceived membership) in a certain social group or race.

Since there was no victim targeted, no hate crime. Mind changed?

[stimpy]

Here is the Wikipedia definition of a hate crime:

A hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime or bias crime) is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership (or perceived membership) in a certain social group or race.

Since there was no victim targeted, no hate crime. Mind changed?

But how does filing a false report of a hate crime equal disorderly conduct, which is what he was charged with?
You would think there would be a harsher charge than that.

[GreenGoo]

But how does filing a false report of a hate crime equal disorderly conduct, which is what he was charged with?
You would think there would be a harsher charge than that.

Why? If I pull a fire alarm, what should I be charged with? If I yell fire in a crowded theater, what should I be charged with? If I swear that someone ran me off the road causing an accident, but it turns out I had too many and crashed it myself, what is an appropriate response from the justice system for something like that?

I'm honestly asking. I have exactly zero knowledge about what the justice system has to say about filing a false police report. Even if he were to go to jail (which I think he deserves) I wouldn't expect it to be more than weekends for a month. Or 6 months. In that situation, I could also easily see him serving no time whatsoever.

But honest question, what charges *should* a false police report result in? Because I have no idea. My instinct is that while as a member of the public, I think it's a shitty thing to do and now I kind of hate him and the damage he's done to how the public views race in general, but also because of the time and money he wasted that could have been spent on actual crime, from a justice system standpoint, it's relatively small potatoes. Is falsely reporting shoplifting worse than actual shoplifting? If so, why? Is falsely reporting an assault worse than actual assault? Because people beat the shit out of people every day and the justice system gives them a slap on the wrist and away they go. It also puts people in jail for years for seemingly similar crimes. I have no idea how it's supposed to work, but disorderly conduct doesn't sound inherently wrong in this case, at least to me.

Separately, the question that was asked wasn't "what is an appropriately harsh punishment for this crime?". It was "this is a hate crime. Convince me otherwise". It wasn't an honest attempt to engage, neither here nor on the rest of the internet, so I don't feel compelled to respond seriously the topic. The question you posed is a completely different beast, and I'd like to hear what the answers are to it as well.

[em2nought]

I think it's a shitty thing to do and now I kind of hate him and the damage he's done to how the public views race in general

There's your victim

The Free Dictionary by Farlex

Other critics complain that there is no such thing as a victimless crime; whenever one of these crimes is committed but goes unpunished, individual mores, societal values, and the Rule of Law are undermined or compromised, rendering society itself the victim.

[Combustible Lemur]

Here is the Wikipedia definition of a hate crime:

A hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime or bias crime) is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership (or perceived membership) in a certain social group or race.

Since there was no victim targeted, no hate crime. Mind changed?

So I ha e zero engagement with the OP'er. However I don't really have qualms with this being labelled a hate crime either. A dumbass used racial animus to stage a nation instigating backlash towards white trump supporters, that could easily have spurred violence. Looking at the adjacent definition it kinda fits the bill. The "target" was both Maga folk, and the exploited reactionary masses.
Hate can be rational and cold.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Alefroth]

Here is the Wikipedia definition of a hate crime:

A hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime or bias crime) is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership (or perceived membership) in a certain social group or race.

Since there was no victim targeted, no hate crime. Mind changed?

So I ha e zero engagement with the OP'er. However I don't really have qualms with this being labelled a hate crime either. A dumbass used racial animus to stage a nation instigating backlash towards white trump supporters, that could easily have spurred violence. Looking at the adjacent definition it kinda fits the bill. The "target" was both Maga folk, and the exploited reactionary masses.
Hate can be rational and cold.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Okay, you've made up some victims. What crime was committed against them?

[Zarathud]

False police reports.

It takes a Trumpian sense of persecution to turn that into a hate crime. Particularly when it has been shown in multiple studies that black/brown people are consistently victims of mistaken identity and increased law enforcement. But the true victims of hate crimes are Kavanaugh, Covington high school students, and two white people in Chicago who were never arrested.

The hypocrisy is more appalling and phony than Smollett's made up story that the Chicago police didn't fall for.

What we should be doing here is congratulating the Chicago police for doing their job well and avoiding an injustice.

[noxiousdog]

Dan Savage addressed this in his show this week and it was the first time I understood what being a hate crime really meant.

A hate crime makes everyone of a particular group feel threatened. It's terrorism. The victim isn't only the the one who was assaulted but also anyone who identifies as a target.

Dan Savage was advocating charging anyone who makes false claims like this with a hate crime as, while the assault was a fake police report, the terror that it spreads is legitimate.

[Vorret]

The guy is an ass but that's not a hate crime, Trump supporters are seriously reaching now to make a point that doesn't exist.

[stimpy]

Dan Savage addressed this in his show this week and it was the first time I understood what being a hate crime really meant.

A hate crime makes everyone of a particular group feel threatened. It's terrorism. The victim isn't only the the one who was assaulted but also anyone who identifies as a target.

Dan Savage was advocating charging anyone who makes false claims like this with a hate crime as, while the assault was a fake police report, the terror that it spreads is legitimate.

Couldn't agree more.

[LordMortis]

Define it however you want, I'm not clicking on a breitbart link.



Everyone wants to make liberal political and conservative political juxtapositions, so I'll make my observation as well. When the left have OUTRAGE and their OUTRAGE turns out to be over misinformation, they tend to concede the problem and turn on those who misinformed them. When the right have OUTRAGE and their OUTRAGE turns out to be over misinformation they either double down on the misinformation and try to distract and move on to something else.

For reasons I don't quite get, the reflexive voice of OO this morning is atypical, almost as if trying to downplay or defend the actions subtly.

Speculation is he gets a fine because ultimately that's what happens to for the criminal offense of filing a false police report and that is what his crime was. That seems light to me, given the nature of hype related to such a sensitive issue. But then maybe not. Dude is fucked. This will end his career and I don't imagine his acting credits to date have allowed him enough bank to retire.

[GreenGoo]

I disagree completely. Defining a crime by how people react to it is a terrible precedent to set. Is swatztika graffiti not a hate crime if no one feels threatened? Is street art suddenly a hate crime if everyone in the old folks home next door feels less safe?

"How does this make you feel" is a question for your therapist, not the detective in charge of an investigation.

[Unagi]

So, can anyone show me a single time where a white man who made up a 'black person did it' testimony was charged with a Hate Crime? Cause that happens and I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever try and paint that as "a Hate Crime". Even if it's obviously born out of racism and bigotry.

I understand a Hate Crime to be exactly the way you say that Dan Savage helped you understand it to be:

It makes everyone of a particular group feel threatened by a violent attack on an individual (or perhaps a group, or property).

But at best, what Smollett did was target 'white men' via a false claim against 2 'fake' white men. It's slander, perhaps - but there was no violent attack made against anyone. Additionally, there would need to be some reason that 'white mean' feel terrorized by his report, right !?. I don't think I felt at all targeted by his false claim, not in the least. Perhaps if I was a white male that beat up black people and put nooses around their neck, I'd have felt targeted, but I'm so far from that behavior - it sounded like he was making up a "MAGA Boogy Man" (please understand, there was pretty much No One in Chicago that felt this attack sounded remotely honest, but clearly needed to be taken as ).

I think if you are being intellectually honest about the concept of a "hate crime", there needs to be an honest reason for the 'targeted community' to feel terrorized by the crime in question. I really can't believe that the MAGA community feels terrorized by this. Not buying it at all.

[Unagi]

I disagree completely. Defining a crime by how people react to it is a terrible precedent to set. Is swatztika graffiti not a hate crime if no one feels threatened? Is street art suddenly a hate crime if everyone in the old folks home next door feels less safe?

"How does this make you feel" is a question for your therapist, not the detective in charge of an investigation.

While I see your point to some degree... the truth is, that is the nature of the legal point behind 'a hate crime'.

If a swastika TRULY did not make anyone feel threatened, then it would just be graffiti. Case in point: other graffiti that isn't as racially and historically charged as a swastika.

If the street art shows scenes of Nazi pushing old people into showers and ovens and is across the street from the old folks home filled with mostly WWII vets, I can see questioning the judgment of sanctioning that 'street art' and taking it down (clearly not a hate crime).

[GreenGoo]

Every single joke on any edgy comedy show that deals with the stereotype of white people blaming non-existent "some black guy" for a crime because everyone will readily believe it is by this definition no longer simply an unjust reference to past (or ongoing) racism, they are now, retroactively, jokes about hate crimes.

Why the sudden need to label this type of action a hate crime? White people have been doing for centuries, and more regularly and in greater numbers with far more severe consequences. These are all now hate crimes?

Because if you label this a hate crime, you have to retroactively label every other false accusation across race lines a hate crime, and there are literally thousands upon thousands of examples of white people doing this. This is a white person crime. The stats based on race have got to be 1000 to 1. 100000 to one, whites falsely accusing blacks Vs blacks falsely accusing (even more important, being believed) whites.

Maybe that's the real reason the right want this called a hate crime. To make amends for the centuries of false accusations and prosecutions that white people have perpetrated against black people, so that going forward white people will be slapped with additional charges in the future. Because that's the result of this mindset.

Somehow I doubt it though.

I'm opposed to a separate category of crime based on hate, so it should be little surprise that I find the drive to label this one a hate crime unpalatable.

[GreenGoo]

While I see your point to some degree... the truth is, that is the nature of the legal point behind 'a hate crime'.

If a swastika TRULY did not make anyone feel threatened, then it would just be graffiti. Case in point: other graffiti that isn't as racially and historically charged as a swastika.

I think you misunderstand me because I wasn't clear. I'm not asking "what if" swastikas magically weren't threatening, I'm asking "what if" *this* swastika wasn't threatening? If that's hard to imagine, here's a hypothetical.

Small community, crazy racist dude is known for being racist and crazy. Sometimes he draws swastikas across the street from the local synagogue. He's been doing this for years, and the jewish community are aware of it and are more annoyed that scared. "Crazy old bob is at it again". Not a hate crime? Because that's the logic being applied here.

Lee Harvey Oswald is stopped by a beat cop and questioned briefly after shooting Kennedy. He claims to have seen "some black guy" running in the other direction with a rifle. Cop arrests Oswald anyway, ignoring Oswald's false claim. Hate crime? Because that's what we're talking about here.

Was Smollett targeting white people to hurt them and *that's* why the entire thing happened? Was his intent to hurt white people, or to appear a victim?

What rational person thinks I'm the same race as the race of the supposed suspects, but it was all made up, so I'm afraid? In the exact same scenario but with race roles reversed, everyone is ok with labeling this a hate crime and that it's reasonable for black people everywhere to feel terrorized?

Is it racist? Sure. Is it a hate crime?

Black burglar only works in white neighbourhoods because he hates white people. Hate crime? White burglar only targets black neigbourhoods because he hates black people? Hate crime? Everyone is good with that? It makes sense to everyone and those burglars deserve harsher punishment than burglars who aren't even aware of the race of the victims they burgle?

[Unagi]

see, now I thought you were replying to me - but we are saying the same thing.



In further support...

Let's not forget the Hate Crime committed against 'hippies' by Jeffery MacDonald...

Susan Smith killed her two kids and made up a story that a black man did it... also not a hate crime.

[Unagi]

I think you misunderstand me because I wasn't clear. I'm not asking "what if" swastikas magically weren't threatening, I'm asking "what if" *this* swastika wasn't threatening? If that's hard to imagine, here's a hypothetical.

Small community, crazy racist dude is known for being racist and crazy. Sometimes he draws swastikas across the street from the local synagogue. He's been doing this for years, and the jewish community are aware of it and are more annoyed that scared. "Crazy old bob is at it again". Not a hate crime? Because that's the logic being applied here.

OK, that helps me understand your point better... But honestly, I think even in your story, Crazy old Bob would very likely be warned by local police that what he's doing can be construed as a hate crime and he would be looking at some serious time if he doesn't knock it off.... it's not just graffiti even if the local jewish community is being more than generous with their read.

In other words, I don't know if this works like 'domestic abuse', where the person being abused needs to step forward and declare they are being abused, else the police can't really do anything. (which even that, I don't think, is entirely true either, now that I write it out).

but, we are not really in that big of a disagreement.

[GreenGoo]

Fair enough. I read your comments on swatstikas as being an explanation as to why my scenario wasn't possible because swatstikas are uniquely terrifying.

[stimpy]

I think what Dan Savage was getting at is not that white people could have possibly felt terrorized by his false claim, but that other black homosexuals would feel that they may be in danger because of the false attack claim made by him.

[GreenGoo]

Susan Smith killed her two kids and made up a story that a black man did it... also not a hate crime.

But today it is, and breitbart fully supports this. That's the logical outcome of this view. I look forward to the uproar on the right the next time a black person is intentionally falsely accused. I'm sure it will be deafening.

[GreenGoo]

edit: Just to be clear, I'm throwing my hands up over the idea the poster clarified for me, not the poster himself.

I think what Dan Savage was getting at is not that white people could have possibly felt terrorized by his false claim, but that other black homosexuals would feel that they may be in danger because of the false attack claim made by him.

We need a "throws up hands in exasperation" emoticon. Dan Savage is free to draw whatever conclusions he wants, using whatever convoluted logic he wants, connecting as many dots as he needs to reach the conclusions he wants. At some point cause and effect relationships have to be put aside, otherwise the butterfly effect is a hate crime.

[Unagi]

I think what Dan Savage was getting at is not that white people could have possibly felt terrorized by his false claim, but that other black homosexuals would feel that they may be in danger because of the false attack claim made by him.

Hmm, interesting angle.

So, this is the (hypothetical) Jewish guy who paints the Swastika on his own garage and hence the other Jews in the neighborhood feel terrorized.

So, then it goes to the next point - the intended point of the transgression.

If the Jewish man that painted the swastika on his own garage was trying to get his property tax lowered, and that was made clear in the investigation then I seriously doubt he would be charged with a Hate Crime.... but perhaps... not sure.

But that is an interesting angle on it.

[Combustible Lemur]

I think what Dan Savage was getting at is not that white people could have possibly felt terrorized by his false claim, but that other black homosexuals would feel that they may be in danger because of the false attack claim made by him.

+1

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[ImLawBoy]

If it helps, I am a white man living in Chicago and I did not feel remotely terrorized or in any way jeopardized by this scenario.

[Unagi]

If it helps, I am a white man living in Chicago and I did not feel remotely terrorized or in any way jeopardized by this scenario.

That's not what is being argued. I made the same assumption.


This is analogous to a Jewish man temporarily terrorizing his Jewish neighbors when he secretly paints a swastika on his own garage in an attempt (painfully wrong headed) to lower his own property taxes.

Unless you are a black gay man in Chicago, your feelings of terror are not what's being considered here.

[LawBeefaroni]

Here is the Wikipedia definition of a hate crime:

A hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime or bias crime) is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership (or perceived membership) in a certain social group or race.

Since there was no victim targeted, no hate crime. Mind changed?

But how does filing a false report of a hate crime equal disorderly conduct, which is what he was charged with?
You would think there would be a harsher charge than that.

There may be other charges coming. But remember, this is Cook County. Home of light sentencing and lighter charges. Kim Foxx recused herself rather than deal with the intricacies of this case. The CCSA office is a joke and their results are...well the result.

Don't worry, he's not getting special treatment. All criminals get the same treatment here.

[LawBeefaroni]

If it helps, I am a white man living in Chicago and I did not feel remotely terrorized or in any way jeopardized by this scenario.

That's not what is being argued. I made the same assumption.


This is analogous to a Jewish man temporarily terrorizing his Jewish neighbors when he secretly paints a swastika on his own garage in an attempt (painfully wrong headed) to lower his own property taxes.

Unless you are a black gay man in Chicago, your feelings of terror are not what's being considered here.

After about 10 minutes of review and thought, most black, gay men in Chicago probably came to the same conclusion as the rest of us. That it was a hoax, or at least not what Smollett was claiming. Nationally it may have been a different story but any black and/or gay man living in Chicago probably had it sussed.

[ImLawBoy]

If it helps, I am a white man living in Chicago and I did not feel remotely terrorized or in any way jeopardized by this scenario.

That's not what is being argued. I made the same assumption.


This is analogous to a Jewish man temporarily terrorizing his Jewish neighbors when he secretly paints a swastika on his own garage in an attempt (painfully wrong headed) to lower his own property taxes.

Unless you are a black gay man in Chicago, your feelings of terror are not what's being considered here.

If the argument is that Smollet committed a hate crime against gay black men, that's even more tortured and absurd than the argument that he committed a hate crime against white men by falsely accusing white men. Any hate crime statute that is going to stand up to any sort of legal challenge is going to at least require that the perpetrator have some specific intent related to the hate. That would be some serious self loathing.

[GreenGoo]

If it helps, I am a white man living in Chicago and I did not feel remotely terrorized or in any way jeopardized by this scenario.

I admit that I had been making the same mistake, but the actual reasoning behind the argument to make this a hate crime is even less likely to convince me. Assuming hate crime covers most/all protected classes, a emotionally unstable woman who claims she was raped on campus has now committed a hate crime against women?

That's a reasonable outcome and something society wants to be true? If it is, ok. I don't agree with it, but if that's what society wants then that's what they'll get.

[GreenGoo]

If the argument is that Smollet committed a hate crime against gay black men, that's even more tortured and absurd than the argument that he committed a hate crime against white men by falsely accusing white men.

Hah! You're faster than I am, so here's your +1.