Two people dressed in black.
By golly it does match part of the descritipion. It MUST be them! 
So can you tell me how to make " I am actually just a bad person" my signature block?
I will if I have the time. Very often I check posts when I just have a few minutes between jobs.
I am actually just a bad person
That’s evidence of an educated citizen, nothing more.
FALSE.
This can be done easily without taking the victim’s phone.
1 Like
The Police don’t need his phone to access such information.
Not easily or quickly.
Contrary to what you see on TV. Police would have to get a search warrant. In Chicago the process is probably more streamlined so they could do this part in just a few hours. But now the very slow part. They have to send the warrant request to the appropriate phone provider, assuming they even know which one it is since he won’t let them see his phone.
Then the phone company has up to THIRTY DAYS to respond. Only in exigent circumstances, which this is not, will they get to it quickly.
So if you want your crime thoroughly and quickly investigated you need to hand over the phone.
1 Like
Yeah but what’s to stop the officer from going far beyond what is required for evidence.
Sorry if they want to see my phone they will need a warrant.
Something is seriously fishy with this story
This guy’s the victim, though. Shouldn’t he be interested is assisting law enforcement catch the perps? Are the cops really that interested in obtaining a warrant to get evidence from a non-cooperative victim? They may if he became a suspect of some sort.
Its crucial they get this evidence of his phone for any conviction.
Lets assume hypothetically that everything Jussie claims happened just like he eventually said it happened. Now lets assume the cops actually find two suspects and make arrests. Now comes the trial.
Jussie’s manager is an alleged witness to this as he’s claiming he heard something during the phone conversation. Any defense lawyer is going to thoroughly attack this angle and if the cops didn’t verify that such a call did in fact take place at the time then it creates a huge hole in the case which undermines the credibility of both Jussie and the manager’s statements.
So if Jussie wants a solid case he needs to turn over his phone.
The only reasons not to turn over the phone when you want the police to actually investigate are as follows: 1) it will show that no such call exists, 2) your phone has evidence on it of other criminal activity on your part - drug yse, child porn, etc, 3) your a paranoid nut job.
I’ll give a perfect example. I took an alleged car theft earlier this summer. It was an issue where someone loaned a car to a friend who allegedly was refusing to return it. My “victim” claimed he’d been texting the friend and there was evidence in the texts that his friend was refusing to return it. I told him I needed to see those texts and my victim freaked out and got upset that I wouldn’t just take his word for it. I basically told him that no investigation could be done without me seeing the texts because this was a quasi civil issue rather than criminal. He finally very reluctantly handed his phone over. The real story is that both of them were dealing and selling drugs together along with doing massive amounts of retail theft. Friend took the car because my “victim” owed him several thousands dollars for drug money and their latest retail theft haul. He didn’t want me to see the texts because they showed evidence of other crimes.
2 Likes
You’ve always been too kind with your words. lol
Hope all is well. 
Unless there is a claim that the phone call was being recorded the records from the phone company will prove a call took place.
No need for the victim to turn over his phone…
GQ caught with hand in fake news cookie jar again.
The incident sparked recollection of many alleged hate crimes that too quickly prompted social media cries of racism and anti-Trump rhetoric only to be later proved as hoaxes. Breitbart keeps a running tab of over 100 hate crime hoaxes since President Trump’s election. Smollett’s suspected attack is eerily similar to one from Massachusetts where a 20-year-old man claimed he was the victim of an assault by two racists who called out “Trump country now” during the attack. After police interviewed the “victim,” he admitted that he had made the story up to “raise awareness” of issues in the country.
It is still too early to tell whether Jussie Smollett’s claims of victimhood are true, false, or somewhere in the exaggerated middle, but that only means that it was too early for outlets like GQ and TMZ to be running stories that place blame at the feet of the president and his supporters for a crime they can’t be sure occurred.
Read more: Jussie Smollett: True hate crime or another hoax? - American Thinker
Hey what’s up dude ! I remember our epic argument about living in a city vs. country (where you have the freedom to walk out naked to your backyard and walk 48 miles to the nearest pub 
)
Everything’s great here, hope it’s well on your end as well
1 Like
Color me with you. The allegations in this incident do not pass the smell test. Reminds me of Tawana Brawley and the Lacrosse team fiasco.
I thought “thug” is a racist code word.
Or is the term okay so long as the “thugs” are allegedly white?
There’s no evidence to support his story. After an exhaustive investigation by local, state, and federal authorities other than one video that captured him walking around with a rope around his neck nothing could be found to support it.
Link to the investigation being over this soon. I’m betting it’s still going on.
But as I’ve stated previous in the thread. Who leves a noose around their next for over 30 minutes.
I didn’t say it was over but there has been an exhaustive investigation involving local, state, and federal officers pouring hundreds of man hours into trying to find anything to support his claims.
Three people each working eight hour shifts for four days is 96 hours, so yeh, hundreds of hours sounds about right.
1 Like
