The victim says it was a punch, which hit him in his right shoulder. He also says that afterwards he shoved a female friend of his, then pulled a knife on them.
If that is true then fuck that guy, but, again that is just a claim. The last case also had people backing up his claim and it turned out to be completely false. Sometimes people lie to back up people because they think they are being compassionate and helpful.
Importantly, this was on a public street with multiple witnesses, specifically right outside a bar in downtown SLC. I seriously doubt he's just making all that up. He also admits he wasn't injured which tends to bolster his credibility further.
And the other had people backing up the claims saying they saw things they did not see.
Nope, Smollett making something up has nothing to do with whether another person is making something up. That's absurd. Unless you subscribe to some notion that a member of one "tribe" making something up means we should be skeptical of every allegation from the same tribe. Look, the Jew lied! We must now be skeptical of everything any Jew says. Whatever else that is, it is completely illogical.
This is very wrong. Trends happen and sadly trends of false claims can happen. There was a time that school shootings were not a thing, and then it just started happening. Each case is different, yet, we can learn from each case to inform us on what to look for next time. That should be pretty obvious in terms of logic. What Smollett did and his motivations can teach us about what is going on in society and how people are reacting to those things.
If anything, the publicity surrounding Smollett and the trouble he is in would be a disincentive for others to fabricate this sort of thing, especially in the short run. Otherwise, I don't see any relationship between the two, nor do I understand how one person's credibility affects the credibility of another just because the two both happen to be gay and/or liberal.
It might, or, it might not. It could very well be that people sympathize with him trying to expose racism in the US and try to do their own. If people feel his motivations about exposing racism were just, they may be willing to do the same for the betterment of the country. Or, it could disincentivize, we will see. I just don't think humans are simple enough for me to say.
Like I said before, any allegation of anything can be fake. Doesn't matter what it is. You act as if a case like Smollett tells us something we didn't know - that a hate crime allegation might be fake just like anything could be, and now we should all have heightened skepticism of all such allegations. No, what the Smollett case says is to call each case on its own facts and don't assume it's true or false based on your political leanings.
There is a level of agitation in society right now that is making people rush to judgement. In my opinion, advocating for people to slow down and be skeptical because of what we have seen in these recent cases is rational as well as helpful. You think that there is nothing to learn, and I vehemently disagree. We have some big cases where people lied and mistakes were made and judgment was reached too quickly. So, the Smollett case is another example in a short time that should be a signal for pause and reflection as to what the current state of society is.
This case doesn't have the same facts as the Smollett case, not even close. You should be his lawyer and argue to the jury that "Jussie Smollett" makes it more likely the victim is lying here. I'm sure that will go over really well.
I would not make that argument as its stupid. What I would say would be "lets try and get more details". The Smollett case serves as an example of how blindly accepting and believing can lead people to accept lies.