Oct 26, 2017
8,209
I mean... you told him you were dropping charges.

He never agreed to anything and maintained his innocence.

Why should he just pay the bill? Chicago PD screwed up. He's just playing the innocent role all the way through.
This. Do they normally ask people charged with crimes that are then dropped or dismissed to pay for the investigation? This seems like a backhanded way to save face.
 

Stephen Home

Alt account
Banned
Dec 17, 2018
709
I don't see the problem, if Kim Foxx can't drop the new charge then this is CPD's strategy to make Jussie Smollett pay.
 

SasaBassa

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,571
He's guilty af but why should he pay for something that he did not admit to and that the city/pd/DA botched hard? The precedent would be astounding.

CPD and Rahm need to hold the L to their chest. Morons.

Giving the police another tool to fuck the American public with is *not* hot yall.
 

Skunk

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,226
On what grounds should he pay? He wasn't found guilty of anything, and all charges were dropped besides. It makes no sense he should pay under such a circumstance and I don't understand what the City's argument on why he legally should would be, and any argument I can imagine for this would be quite worrying in terms of precedent and how easily it could be applied to anyone regardless of guilt or innocence as that would be establishing such things don't matter at all and the City can simply charge people just 'cause they say so.

Nailed it.

If they can sue you for investigation costs to make the city money, they will be filing and then dropping charges against every Joe Schmoe in the universe for jaywalking investigations and then hitting them with unjust lawsuits and fines.

This completely reeks of the city hating that this guy got off and are trying to do everything in their power to fuck with him. For the record, I believe he was probably guilty based on what little I've seen about his case, but he'd be an idiot to pay this. Charges were dropped, the city missed its chance. Anything more is unjust and likely unconstitutional.
 

GK86

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,443
Jesus at people thinking he should pay. Then cops should pay after they get let off for murder.
 

Wulfric

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,021
That's gonna be a nah from me dawg

What's stopping them from sending a bill for 'investigation fees' to everyone with dropped charges?
 

Deleted member 283

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,288
Because he still made all this bullshit up and wasted everyone's time. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. It's not rocket science.
Says who? Certainly not the law, and that's what matters. If that's what they think, they can charge him. Trying to have it both ways doesn't cut it, or at least it shouldn't.

Like, are you seriously alright with this? Because if you are, you're saying that guilt is irrelevant; the City should be able to charge you anyway.

And what that means is then say the police would be able to make up bullshit charges, then do a bs investigation and then charge you for that investigation anyway even if you're not charged or found not guilty.

Like, obviously that's not what happened here. Duh. But that's the type of precedent this would open up regardless and why you have to think outside the Smollett case itself as stuff like this won't tenain confined to it.

The fact of the matter is that regardless of his guilt, he wasn't actually found legally guilty or even charged with breaking any laws so just fining him anyway because "we all know he's guilty" would set a very worrying precedent that would kind of undermine the entire legal system s d the ability to find someone not guilty/aquit someone of/drop charges to begin with. Either someone's guilty, or they're not. Not establishing guilt, but doing a workaround like this that's totally all "well, we didn't even press charges against you, nevermind actually find you guilty, but we're going to sct like you are anyway" would be really worrying from a legal perspective, have broad implications outside of this case, and should be laughed out of any courtroom that has even a semblance of sense to it for those reasons.
 

mugurumakensei

Elizabeth, I’m coming to join you!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,906
But given he was never charged with that, they don't really have a leg to stand on trying to get him to pay. Even if he totally did that.

As someone else mentioned, this is really a fight between the City and the DA.

Technically, a lawsuit means lower burden of proof so yea they can.
I mean OJ wasn't "guilty" but he got successfully sued.
 

Surface of Me

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,207
Fuck Jussie. But also fuck the police. They don't have a leg to stand on since they dropped the charges.
 

Deleted member 176

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
37,160
If he's innocent there's no way he should have to pay, if he's not innocent they shouldn't have dropped charges
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,018
He's guilty af but why should he pay for something that he did not admit to and that the city/pd/DA botched hard? The precedent would be astounding.

CPD and Rahm need to hold the L to their chest. Morons.

Giving the police another tool to fuck the American public with is *not* hot yall.
They're salty they can't shoot him like they normally would.
 

Verelios

Member
Oct 26, 2017
14,914
Even if he's guilty as fuck, if you want him to pay for the investigation then charge him. This is ridiculous.
 

daegan

#REFANTAZIO SWEEP
Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,145
what a fucking joke. I hope they end up owing him money for pulling this stunt.
 

TheGhost

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
28,137
Long Island
Says who? Certainly not the law, and that's what matters. If that's what they think, they can charge him. Trying to have it both ways doesn't cut it, or at least it shouldn't.

Like, are you seriously alright with this? Because if you are, you're saying that guilt is irrelevant; the City should be able to charge you anyway.

And what that means is then say the police would be able to make up bullshit charges, then do a bs investigation and then charge you for that investigation anyway even if you're not charged or found not guilty.

Like, obviously that's not what happened here. Duh. But that's the type of precedent this would open up regardless and why you have to think outside the Smollett case itself as stuff like this won't tenain confined to it.

The fact of the matter is that regardless of his guilt, he wasn't actually found legally guilty or even charged with breaking any laws so just fining him anyway because "we all know he's guilty" would set a very worrying precedent that would kind of undermine the entire legal system s d the ability to find someone not guilty/aquit someone of/drop charges to begin with. Either someone's guilty, or they're not. Not establishing guilt, but doing a workaround like this that's totally all "well, we didn't even press charges against you, nevermind actually find you guilty, but we're going to sct like you are anyway" would be really worrying from a legal perspective, have broad implications outside of this case, and should be laughed out of any courtroom that has even a semblance of sense to it for those reasons.
The people who let him go said he is not exonerated and find him guilty so yeah I'm totally ok with this.
 

quik killa

Member
Oct 29, 2017
300
This isn't about his guilt or innocence in criminal court. I think it is fine to settle this in civil court; let them decide if he is financially responsible for any wrongdoing.
 

MasterChumly

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,176
Honesty these lying to the police for a fake investigation has happened before and I don't think I've ever seen someone go to jail and probably never paid for the full investigation cost. Normally it's always something similar to what he got. Honestly the only reason why this is still a thing is because he is black and made up a trump supporter. Had it literally been the opposite we wouldn't have ever heard a peep again
 

Pata Hikari

Banned
Jan 15, 2018
2,030
User Banned (1 Week): Repeatedly pushing unverified narratives and conspiratorial rhetoric over multiple threads
Well the attorneys are being investigated as well because no one understands why he was let go to begin with.
Its because the CPD tried to frame him and the attorneys could see how flimsy their case was (there's a reason the videos of the brother's "confession" which is the lynchpin of CPD's case hasn't been released)
 

Badgerst

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,631
Good. Play in the mud, get dirty.

Pay up. Consider it payback for the other real crimes that weren't given the time they needed. Snowflake actor pos.
 

Koo

Member
Dec 10, 2017
1,863
Sounds like a shakedown honestly. If they wanted this money they should have pursued the court case against him instead of dropping all charges.
 

SaraNWrap

Alt account
Banned
Jan 30, 2019
665
If only cops cared this much about their own killing innocent people.

Fuck pigs.
 

Thurston Last

Banned
Jul 26, 2018
1,350
Sounds like a shakedown honestly. If they wanted this money they should have pursued the court case against him instead of dropping all charges.

The police didn't drop the charges. They police are upset the prosecutor dropped the charges and are taking maters into their own hands so to speak.
 

Daphne

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
4,165
You shouldn't have to pay for police investigations under any circumstance; it's a public expense to ensure the public good (theoretically). The idea of billing for police services, especially when no charges are placed, is ridiculous. But especially for an iinvestigation as faulty and useless as the CPD one in this matter. Smollett can probably claim it's broken and not fit for purpose under consumer regulations.
 

Opto

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
4,546
Fuck this guy in particular but yeah, you don't want cops charging you for investigations