Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
36 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I'm not sure how I feel about this. What is to prevent this from becoming a revenue stream for cities if they deem reports are false or to collection on any investigation if someone admits to a crime (plea bargains out the window)? Will it deter people from filing any reports? Or only false reports?
 

Chicago Will Sue Jussie Smollett After Saying Actor Refuses to Reimburse City $130,000 for Investigation
 

</snip>
 

Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s law chief sent Smollett a March 28 letter demanding he pay $130,106 — plus 15 cents — within seven days.
 

The City Law Department said in a Thursday statement that Smollett had refused to pay, adding that it was already drafting a lawsuit in response and would file it “in the near future.”
 

</snip>

 

 

Yes I brought this up awhile ago.  I looked up slippery slope in the dictionary and this article came up.  And it's not even a guilty plea.  Jussie plead not guilty the charges were dropped and now the city wants him to reimburse for expenses?  You can't do that. 

  • Replies 950
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
3 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Yes I brought this up awhile ago.  I looked up slippery slope in the dictionary and this article came up.  And it's not even a guilty plea.  Jussie plead not guilty the charges were dropped and now the city wants him to reimburse for expenses?  You can't do that. 

 

He was not acquitted. They most certainly can. They can also make the investigation materials public through the civil suit, circumventing the highly dubious sealing that the criminal court imposed, on top of asking for treble damages.

 

That said, however, I fully expect the new mayor to direct her Law Dept. to quietly bury/dismiss the civil suit.

Posted
11 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

He was not acquitted. They most certainly can. They can also make the investigation materials public through the civil suit, circumventing the highly dubious sealing that the criminal court imposed, on top of asking for treble damages.

 

That said, however, I fully expect the new mayor to direct her Law Dept. to quietly bury/dismiss the civil suit.

 

I never said he was acquitted.  The charges were dropped.  He was never found guilty of any crime.  You want to be charged for the court cost for a case that you went to court for when the charges were dropped because for instance the cop who wrote you the ticked didn't appear?  

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I never said he was acquitted.  The charges were dropped.  He was never found guilty of any crime.  You want to be charged for the court cost for a case that you went to court for when the charges were dropped because for instance the cop who wrote you the ticked didn't appear?  

 

Charges being dropped (especially in a pretty corrupt manner) does not shield one from civil liability.  OJ was not found guilty of murder after a tril, for example, and still owes a metric crapton of money to the Goldmans after losing the civil suit. Being acquitted after trial is a bit more significant than having the charges mysteriously dropped.

 

You're trying to make a false equivalence of a traffic ticket being dismissed because the cop didn't show up and 16 felonies being dropped in an unannounced "emergency" hearing, with the record being immediately sealed, after he performed a whopping two days of community service and agreed to forfeit a $10,000 bond (both of which are, arguably, tacit admissions of guilt.) Innocent people do not perform community service and forfeit 10 grand to have the charges dropped.

 

Edited by Koko78
Posted
2 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Charges being dropped (especially in a pretty corrupt manner) does not shield one from civil liability.  OJ was not found guilty of murder after a tril, for example, and still owes a metric crapton of money to the Goldmans after losing the civil suit. Being acquitted after trial is a bit more significant than having the charges mysteriously dropped.

 

You're trying to make a false equivalence of a traffic ticket being dismissed because the cop didn't show up and 16 felonies being dropped in an unannounced "emergency" hearing, with the record being immediately sealed, after he performed a whopping two days of community service and agreed to forfeit a $10,000 bond (both of which are, arguably, tacit admissions of guilt.) Innocent people do not perform community service and forfeit 10 grand to have the charges dropped.

 

 

They are going after the absolute wrong person.  Going after Jussie for $100k will never ever solve the corruption problem.  The civil trial here should not be against Jussie.  It should be against Foxx.  But back to my point.  You don't see a very scary precedent being set here? 

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

They are going after the absolute wrong person.  Going after Jussie for $100k will never ever solve the corruption problem.  The civil trial here should not be against Jussie.  It should be against Foxx.  But back to my point.  You don't see a very scary precedent being set here? 

 

Oh this is all ego, no question. Chicago PD is butthurt over what happened, and Smollette's smug bullschiff pronouncement of innocence. This is happening after they took a black eye over covering up a kid being killed.

 

Regardless, this is less about the money (which can be tripled up to $390,000) than it is vindication for the Chicago PD officers who are upset that they spent a lot of time and effort to uncover the hoax, only to have it quickly buried in a really thinly-veiled corrupt bargain. The entire point of the demand was to either have him pay the money, admitting guilt, or go to a civil trial on the ordinance, where the evidence the DA had buried can be publicly used.

Edited by Koko78
Posted
13 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Oh this is all ego, no question. Chicago PD is butthurt over what happened, and Smollette's smug bullschiff pronouncement of innocence. This is happening after they took a black eye over covering up a kid being killed.

 

Regardless, this is less about the money (which can be tripled up to $390,000) than it is vindication for the Chicago PD officers who are upset that they spent a lot of time and effort to uncover the hoax, only to have it quickly buried in a really thinly-veiled corrupt bargain. The entire point of the demand was to either have him pay the money, admitting guilt, or go to a civil trial on the ordinance, where the evidence the DA had buried can be publicly used.

 

I'm still not getting how this liability lies on Jussie.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I'm still not getting how this liability lies on Jussie.  

 

Because he falsely reported an incident, then doubled down on the lies, wasting hundreds and hundreds of man-hours of the Chicago PD investigating a hoax he perpetrated. The theory of liability is that the Chicago taxpayers deserve reimbursement for him wasting the time of the Chicago PD.

 

Seeking reimbursement is not really that uncommon a thing to do for local governments after someone reports a hoax.

Edited by Koko78
Posted
9 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Because he falsely reported an incident, then doubled down on the lies, wasting hundreds and hundreds of man-hours of the Chicago PD investigating a hoax he perpetrated. The theory of liability is that the Chicago taxpayers deserve reimbursement for him wasting the time of the Chicago PD.

 

Seeking reimbursement is not really that uncommon a thing to do for local governments after someone reports a hoax.

 

The hoax wasn't proven as fact was it?  We all know he did it but innocent until proven guilty right?  Again I'm only going the slippery slope/devil's advocate route.  

Posted
1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

 

The hoax wasn't proven as fact was it?  We all know he did it but innocent until proven guilty right?  Again I'm only going the slippery slope/devil's advocate route.  

 

It has to be worth the cost to pursue it.

 

it isn’t and wasn’t and won’t beeeeeeee

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

Seeking reimbursement is not really that uncommon a thing to do for local governments after someone reports a hoax.

 

Wouldn't that be a crime he should be prosecuted for?  How can it be proven to be a hoax of there is no trial?

 

Are there other cases you can point to where a person made a false accusation and then the accuser was required to pay for the police investigation without due process?

 

I think what Jussie is accused of is abhorrent.  But making him pay for the investigation without due process is a wrong remedy IMHO.

Edited by reddogblitz
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

I don’t want people deprived of rights or freedom or $$ unless proven in court or admitted

 

but I don’t need that level of proof to come up with my opinion, which won’t bother him at all

Posted
18 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

The hoax wasn't proven as fact was it?  We all know he did it but innocent until proven guilty right?  Again I'm only going the slippery slope/devil's advocate route.  

 

Couldn't tell you, they hid the evidence. That's the point of the civil trial.

Posted
15 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Wouldn't that be a crime he should be prosecuted for?  How can it be proven to be a hoax of there is no trial?

 

Are there other cases you can point to where a person made a false accusation and then the accuser was required to pay for the police investigation without due process?

 

I think what Jussie is accused of is abhorrent.  But making him pay for the investigation without due process is a wrong remedy IMHO.

 

THAT. IS. THE. *****. POINT. OF. HAVING. A. CIVIL. TRIAL.

 

Seriously, this is not a complicated thing to understand.

Posted
14 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

THAT. IS. THE. *****. POINT. OF. HAVING. A. CIVIL. TRIAL.

 

Seriously, this is not a complicated thing to understand.

 

If the civil trial finds him guilty or whatever and rewards damages to the city I suppose that's OK I guess.

 

I agree with the Chef.  Slippery slope.  I could see this morphing into the day when on my way home from work I think I see a crime happen.  I report it. It turns out to be false.  A bureaucrat decides it was a hoax and sends me a bill for $40,000.

 

These kinds of things even though they feel good at the time often come back to bite one in the buttox later.

 

Serious question: Are you aware of any other case where a person falsely accused a crime and was required to pay for the police investigation?

 

Again, I think what Jussie allegedly did is abhorrent. I want to prosecute him to the full extent of the law.  Not make up new laws.  Foxx should be investigated and prosecuted if wrong doing can be proved.

Posted

i have read about people getting lost in the wilderness up here and having to pay for the rescue efforts.

 

You should take a compass with you at the very least on these excursions.

 

 

Posted
24 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Couldn't tell you, they hid the evidence. That's the point of the civil trial.

 

How much will this civil trial cost?  Probably triple the cost of the investigation.  Just ***** let it go.  

Posted
10 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

How much will this civil trial cost?  Probably triple the cost of the investigation.  Just ***** let it go.  

 

it was always silly to me, a stunt turned bad

 

the use of CPD resources to this extent, in a city known for daily murder, doesn't ring well

 

 

×
×
  • Create New...