• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The penalty for false accusations...

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The penalty for false accusations should be at least equal to the penalty that one could suffer had he or she been convicted of the acts in the accusation.

Is there anyone here who thinks Smollett is a victim of a real, not staged, attack?

He may not have been tried for his false accusations, however we can penalize him by forever linking his name to the practice of making false accusations. We should call it smolletting.

 

wabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
152
Location
briar patch, NM
The penalty for false accusations should be at least equal to the penalty that one could suffer had he or she been convicted of the acts in the accusation.

Is there anyone here who thinks Smollett is a victim of a real, not staged, attack?

He may not have been tried for his false accusations, however we can penalize him by forever linking his name to the practice of making false accusations. We should call it smolletting.

Nope honestly do not care about Mr Smollett’s real or perceived issues nor how you believe it effects the world as you know it!

Ya know, I operate from a very basic perspective of a court of law principle that one is innocent until a jury of his peers finds, based on DA’s evidence proving guilt.

Sorry not a fan of lynching by mob rule after the mob busts into the jail and drags the individual out to the nearest tree with the rope around their neck!

Nor under any circumstances publically labeling anybody as it is just wrong - how would you feel if members leveled a label on you based on your postings?
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
My point is that he committed a crime by falsely reporting the attack. He should be tried and, if convicted, punished. I am proposing that the law set the penalty for a false report be equal to the penalty one would suffer if convicted of the reported action.

I advocate lynching no one. I advocate for rule of law.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,399
Location
here nc
Snippp...

He may not have been tried for his false accusations, however we can penalize him by forever linking his name to the practice of making false accusations. We should call it smolletting.
My point is that he committed a crime by falsely reporting the attack. snipped

I advocate lynching no one. I advocate for rule of law.
So mate, You advocate for rule of law...
  1. Yet you fail to cite the rule of law you purportedly advocate.
  2. You perceive and publically state he commited a crime ~ DA doesn’t!
  3. While the DA publically states they didn't pursue charges ~ you wish to pursue penalties administered in the court of public opinion!
  4. Court of public opinion is strictly mob justice - lynching justice if you will - it isn’t impartial and its only purpose is damage to reputation, revenge, public shaming, and to satisfy the whims of the frenzied crowd.
  5. You are and have begun to inciting the crowd.
Further, I do believe your inciting this mob justice, er public opinion could fall under the auspices of instituting defamation of character, especially since you are advocating reputation/shaming using the written word on a public forum to incite the crowd, might/could be possibly be considered libel.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,124
Location
Kentucky
My point is that he committed a crime by falsely reporting the attack. He should be tried and, if convicted, punished. I am proposing that the law set the penalty for a false report be equal to the penalty one would suffer if convicted of the reported action.

I advocate lynching no one. I advocate for rule of law.
Lost cause .

We have a multi tiered justice system run wild and has been for a century.

The rule of law equally applied died long before any of us were born.

As far as Smollett. The case was dropped.

He was not tried. No matter how I feel about him or his actions he is legally innocent.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Legally, he is not guilty—yet.

No one has declared him innocent.

He is, based on the information available to me, guilty as sin. Just not in the eyes of the law—yet.

I have heard that the feds are looking at him for mail fraud. I hope this is true.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,028
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Legally, he is not guilty—yet.

No one has declared him innocent.

He is, based on the information available to me, guilty as sin. Just not in the eyes of the law—yet.

I have heard that the feds are looking at him for mail fraud. I hope this is true.
No one is ever declared innocent. Being acquitted has nothing to do with innocence. You can be acquitted of murder, but that does not mean you are innocent of killing.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,399
Location
here nc
Legally, he is not guilty—yet.

No one has declared him innocent.

He is, based on the information available to me, guilty as sin. Just not in the eyes of the law—yet.

I have heard that the feds are looking at him for mail fraud. I hope this is true.
Black’s Law, acquit - When a person accused of a crime is legally freed by a court generally as a result of lack of evidence. This decision cannot generally be appealed unless in a special circumstance.

The courts “freed” this individual ~ PERIOD!

You are engaging in inciting mob/public opinion harm against this individual for some unknown reason.

Eye95 why? Is it because of their sexuality or ethnicity or just their celebrity status but what is driving this bizzare & inordinately desire/interest to continue your tirades to incite harm/damage to the reputation of this nobody?

Again, are you alright eye95 as this outrageous behaviour being exhibited is truly extraordinary even for you!
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,399
Location
here nc
But eye95 in your inital OP is quite appropriately for your own actions:

Quote ;
The penalty for false accusations should be at least equal to the penalty that one could suffer had he or she been convicted of the acts in the accusation. Unquote
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,124
Location
Kentucky
Legally, he is not guilty—yet.

No one has declared him innocent.

He is, based on the information available to me, guilty as sin. Just not in the eyes of the law—yet.

I have heard that the feds are looking at him for mail fraud. I hope this is true.
No one had to declare him innocent. He was not tried .

Being charged does not make one quilty . Being found guilty in a trial makes one quilty.

One is presumed innocent until then. If there is no confession and no trial one never changes status from innocent.

He legally is and always has been Innocent.
 

FreedomVA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
551
Location
FreedomVA
13583 Mr. Smollett 13584

you know if it was a white guy, he would've been charged by federal, state, municipal and localities
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
No one had to declare him innocent. ...
You declared him “legally innocent”. I was responding to that specific remark.

...[H]e is legally innocent.
The presumption of innocence does not mean one is innocent. It merely means that one has not been found to be guilty and will be treated under the law as though he were innocent.

By now, with all the information that is out there, we can be certain that he faked this incident. He is guilty as sin, just not declared so by the courts.

My point is, and remains, that (IMO) the punishment for having been found guilty for making false accusations should be the penalty that would have been suffered by anyone convicted of the accusation. IMO Smollett belongs in jail for having “smolletted”.

There is an awful lot of smolletting going on lately. We have got to start holding people accountable for such behavior. Legally. In court. If Chicago won’t do it, I hope the feds do.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Orange Juice Simpson comes to mind
Exactly. OJ is clearly guilty of a crime for which the criminal law failed to find him so. He is legally “not guilty” (not “innocent”). However, in the real world, he is guilty as sin.

Guilt is not just a legal term.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,399
Location
here nc
Exactly. OJ is clearly guilty of a crime for which the criminal law failed to find him so. He is legally “not guilty” (not “innocent”). However, in the real world, he is guilty as sin.

Guilt is not just a legal term.
Black’s Law, acquit - When a person accused of a crime is legally freed by a court generally as a result of lack of evidence. This decision cannot generally be appealed unless in a special circumstance.

Definition is the same for OJ or Smollett or the nice LEs who shoot citizens and are ‘acquitted’ by the court’s IE.

Truly not sure eye95 why you seem to be stuck on continuing your court of public or mob rule admonition of this?
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,124
Location
Kentucky
Exactly. OJ is clearly guilty of a crime for which the criminal law failed to find him so. He is legally “not guilty” (not “innocent”). However, in the real world, he is guilty as sin.

Guilt is not just a legal term.
OJ is guilty in reality.

All my posts to this one have specified legally.

Smollett or OJ however were presumed innocent until found guilty by a jury of their peers.

If not found guilty they are legally as innocent as they were before being charged.

That a prosecutor fails in his job is the prosecutors problem.

As to you proposed law, we already have laws against willful false reporting of crimes.

Probably 30 different versions of that type of law.

The LAST thing this nation needs is more knee jerk feel good do nothing laws.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,028
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
OJ is guilty in reality.

All my posts to this one have specified legally.

Smollett or OJ however were presumed innocent until found guilty by a jury of their peers.

If not found guilty they are legally as innocent as they were before being charged.

That a prosecutor fails in his job is the prosecutors problem.

As to you proposed law, we already have laws against willful false reporting of crimes.

Probably 30 different versions of that type of law.

The LAST thing this nation needs is more knee jerk feel good do nothing laws.
But, but, but...........
 
Top