Watch this North Carolina hospital volunteer have a complete freakout over a visiting black family

First topic message reminder :

On a  video uploaded to YouTube, a volunteer at a North Carolina hospital is seen going on a shrieking rampage and telling a black family to get out while kicking at them. According to WNCN, Isaiah Baskins uploaded the video after he took his daughter to an appointment at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center where he encountered the unidentified woman who worked as a volunteer there. Baskins states that the woman called him a “n*gger” before telling him to leave as he took out his phone to record the encounter. As the video begins, the woman is seen on the phone asking some one to “get these people out of here.”

With Baskins asking her what her problem is — and whether she is “off her medicine” — the woman loses control and begins shrieking at the family, complaining about the man’s gray underwear coming out of the top of his pants.

She then grabs at the cellphone while hollering “get out of here!” as she kicks him him and calls him a “dirty old tramp.”

Another man steps in saying he’s trying to “defuse the situation” before ruefully stating, “Something is wrong with her.”

A spokesperson for the hospital apologized and said the woman is no longer a volunteer there.

Watch the video below via YouTube:





http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/watch-this-north-carolina-hospital-volunteer-have-a-complete-freakout-over-a-visiting-black-family/




For some reason after watching that it made me think of the the original "Exorcist" movie

Original Quill wrote:Well, I thank you for your good fight in my absence, 4eva.  I seize upon this clip because it gives the comprehensive overview of the southern mind.

Normally I am pointing to a person who murdered a half-dozen people (Dylann Roof?) and saying this is the southern mentality.  But I can never distinguish that single incident from  a mind-set.  

Here, I have the mind-set, openly stated and elaborately explained...and I don't even need her to murder a half-dozen people.  This is the southern mind, openly exhibited, and manifestly on display.  Rarely, if ever, do I have the opportunity to display my wares right out there in front of you, the buyer.

So now I have the murders of Dylann Roof.  I have all the cop killings leading up to Black Lives Matter.  I have Ferguson, Baltimore and Charleston...and a woman voicing the racist mind in Wake Forest Baptist Hospital.  I feel like I've won completely.  Surely only the weakest minds do not get it.

Well, it's always a worthy attempt to delve into another humans basic reasoning for 'HTH' {how the hell} they've arrived at their misguided conclusions; but when the poster just keeps switching gears/moving the goal post/and flip/flopping about like a panic butterfly~~~it's a exhausting endeavor. 

"The Zimmerman jury went on the evidence, not prejudice, IMO."

And ASSumtpions galore do not a valid reason make - IMO    
But, I gave the ole' college try...always hope to be successful, but I rarely ever succeed.   And the back-peddling begins in earnest and goal posts relocated!

THE OBVIOUS flaw with Ragamuffin's continual wrong-headed defence of Zimmerman's indefensible actions seems to be that she's starting at the position that Zimmerman was "defending" himself against an attack...

TOTALLY ignoring the facts :

* Zimmerman was neithet a cop nor a security guard -- he was a private citizen on a self initiated "neighbourhood watch" patrol, carrying a handgun for his own "self defence";
*  Zimmerman's victim was only "armed" with a soft drink can;
*  Zimmerman went after his victim -- even after being told not to approach him !
*  His victim didn't go after Zimmerman..
*  After the trial, three jurors in subsequent imterviews claimed that they and some others felt that Zimmerman was guilty, but felt intimidated and threatened into voting him not guilty !

NOT the first time that we've seen Ragga' using "self defence" arguments for some crim's offensive actions..

AS WITH  OJ Simpson before him, most thinking people do appear to consider Zimmerman guilty...


AND YES, Rags Zimmerman is "white" -- as in the USA that term refers to somebody of predominantly caucasian background, and not simply the colour of their skin..

AFTERALL, in the USA no "blacks" are truly black,  but various shades of brown.       

4EVER2 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
Yes, I stated that in my opinion the Zimmerman jury went on the evidence. In fact, one of the jurors also said that afterwards. I was disagreeing with Quill who has consistently said on several occasions that the jury was biased, and he brought it up yet again. If I went on the evidence and decided that it was self defence, why would anyone assume that the jury didn't do the same thing?

I also don't really get why Zimmerman was consistently described as "white". He doesn't look white to me.

In any case, I wasn't talking about juries in general, I was specifically talking about the Zimmerman trial, which I followed very closely, so I don't know why you claimed I was making misguided statements. Did you follow the trial at all? Do you think that the evidence proved he murdered Trayvon Martin? If so, what do you base that on?

Really hard to tell when you're not "posting in generalities" when you've clarified that you aren't from America and you've never served on a JURY and yet you posted that: " The Zimmerman jury went on the evidence, not prejudice, IMO."

You've just made a HUGE ASSUMPTION and I was trying {many times} to get an explanation of WTF you've based that ASSUMPTION upon?

But your 2nd post quite efficiently cleared any need to know since you've dribble your caustic attitude around the forum quite rapidly and rather pungently as well. 
Now I DO NOT CARE that you've gone off the deep end and can't provide an adult answer!  DONE with giving-a-shit!

How many times do I have to say that the jury reached the same verdict as I did, based on the evidence which was shown in court? Of course it's possible they reached the same verdict for a different reason.

I think that you and Quill are the ones making huge assumptions. You haven't actually said if you think Zimmerman murdered Martin or not, but Quill thinks he did, and he makes assumptions because Trayvon Martin was black. He also assumes that the jury must have been prejudiced because they acquitted Zimmerman. Neither of you seem to have considered the possibility that it was actually self defence.

Original Quill wrote:Well, I thank you for your good fight in my absence, 4eva.  I seize upon this clip because it gives the comprehensive overview of the southern mind.

Normally I am pointing to a person who murdered a half-dozen people (Dylann Roof?) and saying this is the southern mentality.  But I can never relate that single incident to a mind-set.  
Here, I have the mind-set, openly stated and voluntarily explained...and I don't even need her to murder a half-dozen people.  This is the southern mind, openly exhibited, and manifestly on display.  Rarely, if ever, do I have the opportunity to display my wares right out there in front of you, the buyer.

So now I have the murders of Dylann Roof.  I have all the cop killings leading up to Black Lives Matter.  I have Ferguson, Baltimore and Charleston...and a woman voicing the racist mind in Wake Forest Baptist Hospital.  I feel like I've won completely.  Surely only the weakest minds do not get it.

Now then Quill, you've always said that one shouldn't generalise from specifics, and yet that's exactly what you're doing right now.

4EVER2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Well, I thank you for your good fight in my absence, 4eva.  I seize upon this clip because it gives the comprehensive overview of the southern mind.

Normally I am pointing to a person who murdered a half-dozen people (Dylann Roof?) and saying this is the southern mentality.  But I can never distinguish that single incident from  a mind-set.  

Here, I have the mind-set, openly stated and elaborately explained...and I don't even need her to murder a half-dozen people.  This is the southern mind, openly exhibited, and manifestly on display.  Rarely, if ever, do I have the opportunity to display my wares right out there in front of you, the buyer.

So now I have the murders of Dylann Roof.  I have all the cop killings leading up to Black Lives Matter.  I have Ferguson, Baltimore and Charleston...and a woman voicing the racist mind in Wake Forest Baptist Hospital.  I feel like I've won completely.  Surely only the weakest minds do not get it.

Well, it's always a worthy attempt to delve into another humans basic reasoning for 'HTH' {how the hell} they've arrived at their misguided conclusions; but when the poster just keeps switching gears/moving the goal post/and flip/flopping about like a panic butterfly~~~it's a exhausting endeavor. 

"The Zimmerman jury went on the evidence, not prejudice, IMO."

And ASSumtpions galore do not a valid reason make - IMO    
But, I gave the ole' college try...always hope to be successful, but I rarely ever succeed.   And the back-peddling begins in earnest and goal posts relocated!

Why are you assuming that my conclusion is misguided? One of the jurors actually said that they went on the evidence, and that there was no evidence that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin. You clearly didn't watch the trial, but did you read anything about it at all?

There's been no back-pedalling from me - I've been consistent throughout this discussion.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

THE OBVIOUS flaw with Ragamuffin's continual wrong-headed defence of Zimmerman's indefensible actions seems to be that she's starting at the position that Zimmerman was "defending" himself against an attack...

TOTALLY ignoring the facts :

* Zimmerman was neithet a cop nor a security guard -- he was a private citizen on a self initiated "neighbourhood watch" patrol, carrying a handgun for his own "self defence";
*  Zimmerman's victim was only "armed" with a soft drink can;
*  Zimmerman went after his victim -- even after being told not to approach him !
*  His victim didn't go after Zimmerman..
*  After the trial, three jurors in subsequent imterviews claimed that they and some others felt that Zimmerman was guilty, but felt intimidated and threatened into voting him not guilty !

NOT the first time that we've seen Ragga' using "self defence" arguments for some crim's offensive actions..

AS WITH  OJ Simpson before him, most thinking people do appear to consider Zimmerman guilty...


AND YES, Rags Zimmerman is "white" -- as in the USA that term refers to somebody of predominantly caucasian background, and not simply the colour of their skin..

AFTERALL, in the USA no "blacks" are truly black,  but various shades of brown.       

The obvious flaw in your argument is that you're assuming that I assumed it was self defence from the start, which is not correct. I looked at the evidence in great detail, unlike you. You and the other sheep were set up from the start to assume that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon - right from the moment misleading photos were posted of them in the press and on the internet.

You have completely missed the evidence which showed that Martin did not go home when he could have done so very easily, and that Zimmerman did not know where he was by the time he ended the call with the police dispatcher. You missed the evidence that Zimmerman had wounds on the back of his head. You missed the evidence of John Good who clearly said that the guy matching Trayvon's description was on top of the guy matching Zimmerman's description. Do I really need to say more?

How convenient to describe Zimmerman as "white". It paves the way for the assumption that a white guy must have murdered a black guy, right? It suits the race baiters for people to think that.

I'd be interested to hear more about your claim that three jurors felt intimidated and threatened into acquitting him. I assume you can find links to that story.

In fact, I find it very interesting that someone who claims to be a lawyer, someone who goes on evidence, had such a knee-jerk reaction to the shooting and has made so many assumptions based on the colour of those who were involved. Eh Quill?

Raggamuffin wrote:In fact, I find it very interesting that someone who claims to be a lawyer, someone who goes on evidence, had such a knee-jerk reaction to the shooting and has made so many assumptions based on the colour of those who were involved. Eh Quill?

This coming from the poster who based on no qualifications used a medical claim as an excuse for her actions

Hypocrisy much?

didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:In fact, I find it very interesting that someone who claims to be a lawyer, someone who goes on evidence, had such a knee-jerk reaction to the shooting and has made so many assumptions based on the colour of those who were involved. Eh Quill?

This coming from the poster who based on no qualifications used a medical claim as an excuse for her actions

Hypocrisy much?

I don't claim to be a medic though - Quill claims to be a lawyer.

Raggamuffin wrote:

didge wrote:

This coming from the poster who based on no qualifications used a medical claim as an excuse for her actions

Hypocrisy much?

I don't claim to be a medic though - Quill claims to be a lawyer.

Which is just as poor, because you are offering an excuse for her actions
Which you also continued to claim

didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't claim to be a medic though - Quill claims to be a lawyer.

Which is just as poor, because you are offering an excuse for her actions
Which you also continued to claim

I'm not really interested in discussing it with you. I'm not going to change my opinion, no matter what you say.

"Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center is shocked and appalled at the behavior demonstrated by our volunteer in this video. We deeply regret this and have apologized to those affected by this behavior. This behavior does not reflect our identity or our values. This individual is no longer a volunteer with our organization.

Wake Forest Baptist is dedicated to providing an inclusive environment for all, with respect, dignity and compassion. This commitment is unwavering and reinforced every day by our dedicated faculty and staff."

"I, like everyone here, was shocked and appalled at this video," tells Russell Howerton, Chief Medical Officer at Wake Forest Baptist. "Nothing about that video is anything we condone here at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center."

Raggamuffin wrote:

didge wrote:

Which is just as poor, because you are offering an excuse for her actions
Which you also continued to claim

I'm not really interested in discussing it with you. I'm not going to change my opinion, no matter what you say.

Well its of no surprise to me that you would defend someone racist, which seems to be a recurring pattern from you.

didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not really interested in discussing it with you. I'm not going to change my opinion, no matter what you say.

Well its of no surprise to me that you would defend someone racist, which seems to be a recurring pattern from you.

Your violent thuggery seems to be a recurring pattern for you, so you should deal with your own issues rather than sit on a forum 24/7.

Raggamuffin wrote:

didge wrote:

Well its of no surprise to me that you would defend someone racist, which seems to be a recurring pattern from you.

Your violent thuggery seems to be a recurring pattern for you, so you should deal with your own issues rather than sit on a forum 24/7.

So now more outlandish immature accusations, when I simple prove a point you often defend racists.

didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Your violent thuggery seems to be a recurring pattern for you, so you should deal with your own issues rather than sit on a forum 24/7.

So now more outlandish immature accusations, when I simple prove a point you often defend racists.

Who cares what you think? The drugs have addled your brain anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

didge wrote:

So now more outlandish immature accusations, when I simple prove a point you often defend racists.

Who cares what you think? The drugs have addled your brain anyway.

You seem to care by constantly replying, show you also constantly contradict.

Your problem is your are unable to control your emotions.

didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Who cares what you think? The drugs have addled your brain anyway.

You seem to care by constantly replying, show you also constantly contradict.

Your problem is your are unable to control your emotions.

You need to concentrate on controlling your fists ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

didge wrote:

You seem to care by constantly replying, show you also constantly contradict.

Your problem is your are unable to control your emotions.

You need to concentrate on controlling your fists ...

Really, based on what evidence?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

THE OBVIOUS flaw with Ragamuffin's continual wrong-headed defence of Zimmerman's indefensible actions seems to be that she's starting at the position that Zimmerman was "defending" himself against an attack...

TOTALLY ignoring the facts :

* Zimmerman was neithet a cop nor a security guard -- he was a private citizen on a self initiated "neighbourhood watch" patrol, carrying a handgun for his own "self defence";
*  Zimmerman's victim was only "armed" with a soft drink can;
*  Zimmerman went after his victim -- even after being told not to approach him !
*  His victim didn't go after Zimmerman..
*  After the trial, three jurors in subsequent imterviews claimed that they and some others felt that Zimmerman was guilty, but felt intimidated and threatened into voting him not guilty !

NOT the first time that we've seen Ragga' using "self defence" arguments for some crim's offensive actions..

AS WITH  OJ Simpson before him, most thinking people do appear to consider Zimmerman guilty...


AND YES, Rags Zimmerman is "white" -- as in the USA that term refers to somebody of predominantly caucasian background, and not simply the colour of their skin..

AFTERALL, in the USA no "blacks" are truly black,  but various shades of brown.       

Well, there were just 'SO' many flaws with Ragg's continued 'ASSUMPTIONS' and her --- "I watched the trial, DID YOU; and came up with the same verdict from the FACTS that the jury did"...well, as amusing as her stance is there are so many flagrant holes in that reasoning as too just be IRONIC - to say the least!
a.) while it appears that Ragg's assumption that her seated in front of the TV screen will be her place as 13 juror for any of our televised court cases is pretty amusing
b.) that she won't budge off of her continued POV about both her generalizations as well as her grandiose position that jurors are NOT prejudiced in any way
c.) that just because I don't respond to ALL OF RAGG's mental dribbles that I'm not aware of the problems within the Zimmerman case --- reading vs watching the BOOB TUBE is quite a stretch but yet the 13th juror position assumes an absolute OPINION...however wrong it is
d.) this entire diatribe she's presenting is yet another method of derailing this topic from a racist based ranting human {in my own country} that is played out far too often to be polite society and from Ragg's vantage point behind her TV screen she's assuming the women is having a mental melt down and nothing more

Just not worth discussing to the degree that Ragg's is digging in despite her utter fool hardy position on her SOFA ~~~    I don't to HYSTERIA and this feeding the emotionally hyped up discourse is futile!

4EVER2 wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

THE OBVIOUS flaw with Ragamuffin's continual wrong-headed defence of Zimmerman's indefensible actions seems to be that she's starting at the position that Zimmerman was "defending" himself against an attack...

TOTALLY ignoring the facts :

* Zimmerman was neithet a cop nor a security guard -- he was a private citizen on a self initiated "neighbourhood watch" patrol, carrying a handgun for his own "self defence";
*  Zimmerman's victim was only "armed" with a soft drink can;
*  Zimmerman went after his victim -- even after being told not to approach him !
*  His victim didn't go after Zimmerman..
*  After the trial, three jurors in subsequent imterviews claimed that they and some others felt that Zimmerman was guilty, but felt intimidated and threatened into voting him not guilty !

NOT the first time that we've seen Ragga' using "self defence" arguments for some crim's offensive actions..

AS WITH  OJ Simpson before him, most thinking people do appear to consider Zimmerman guilty...


AND YES, Rags Zimmerman is "white" -- as in the USA that term refers to somebody of predominantly caucasian background, and not simply the colour of their skin..

AFTERALL, in the USA no "blacks" are truly black,  but various shades of brown.       

Well, there were just 'SO' many flaws with Ragg's continued 'ASSUMPTIONS' and her --- "I watched the trial, DID YOU; and came up with the same verdict from the FACTS that the jury did"...well, as amusing as her stance is there are so many flagrant holes in that reasoning as too just be IRONIC - to say the least!
a.) while it appears that Ragg's assumption that her seated in front of the TV screen will be her place as 13 juror for any of our televised court cases is pretty amusing
b.) that she won't budge off of her continued POV about both her generalizations as well as her grandiose position that jurors are NOT prejudiced in any way
c.) that just because I don't respond to ALL OF RAGG's mental dribbles that I'm not aware of the problems within the Zimmerman case --- reading vs watching the BOOB TUBE is quite a stretch but yet the 13th juror position assumes an absolute OPINION...however wrong it is
d.) this entire diatribe she's presenting is yet another method of derailing this topic from a racist based ranting human {in my own country} that is played out far too often to be polite society and from Ragg's vantage point behind her TV screen she's assuming the women is having a mental melt down and nothing more

Just not worth discussing to the degree that Ragg's is digging in despite her utter fool hardy position on her SOFA ~~~    I don't to HYSTERIA and this feeding the emotionally hyped up discourse is futile!

Another pile of gibberish from you.

If you don't wish to discuss the issue with me, perhaps you'd have the courtesy not to discuss me with someone else. I didn't ask you to jump in when I replied to Quill - you did that all by yourself and then came out with some vague waffle.

Oh, I forgot - you're a loud-mouthed idiot with no manners.

So nobody can actually refute the evidence presented at the Zimmerman trial then. I didn't think they'd be able to. It's amazing how people get all hostile just because they didn't like the verdict ...

I don't to HYSTERIA and this feeding the emotionally hyped up discourse is futile!

Says the person who indulges in histrionic rants on here every day.

Raggamuffin wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:

Well, there were just 'SO' many flaws with Ragg's continued 'ASSUMPTIONS' and her --- "I watched the trial, DID YOU; and came up with the same verdict from the FACTS that the jury did"...well, as amusing as her stance is there are so many flagrant holes in that reasoning as too just be IRONIC - to say the least!
a.) while it appears that Ragg's assumption that her seated in front of the TV screen will be her place as 13 juror for any of our televised court cases is pretty amusing
b.) that she won't budge off of her continued POV about both her generalizations as well as her grandiose position that jurors are NOT prejudiced in any way
c.) that just because I don't respond to ALL OF RAGG's mental dribbles that I'm not aware of the problems within the Zimmerman case --- reading vs watching the BOOB TUBE is quite a stretch but yet the 13th juror position assumes an absolute OPINION...however wrong it is
d.) this entire diatribe she's presenting is yet another method of derailing this topic from a racist based ranting human {in my own country} that is played out far too often to be polite society and from Ragg's vantage point behind her TV screen she's assuming the women is having a mental melt down and nothing more

Just not worth discussing to the degree that Ragg's is digging in despite her utter fool hardy position on her SOFA ~~~    I don't to HYSTERIA and this feeding the emotionally hyped up discourse is futile!

Another pile of gibberish from you.

If you don't wish to discuss the issue with me, perhaps you'd have the courtesy not to discuss me with someone else. I didn't ask you to jump in when I replied to Quill - you did that all by yourself and then came out with some vague waffle.

Oh, I forgot - you're a loud-mouthed idiot with no manners.

Oh, how utterly AMUSING; you've picked up your shit-fest attacking right where you left off yesterday {40+ posts just between you and Didgy-dooer} and you're jabbing at me about "MY MANNERS" --- very self-righteous of you.  LMAO 

But yet, again...let me correct your continuing wrong ASSUMPTIONS;
a.) I responded to a post that Syl had put up --- after reading the entire thread and all of your immature exchanges with Didgy-dooer
b.) you do not OWN this community - this topic - this specific way that the ADULTS try to maintain the conversational flow; but I hope & pray that you LEARN
c.) you really do need a course in 'how to win friends and influence people'...your posting methods have proven you quite insufficient and highly hysteria driven

And now I'll leave this cesspool that you've created and yet again --- you prove how you are your very own worst enemy when it comes to ANY TOPIC...

4EVER2 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Another pile of gibberish from you.

If you don't wish to discuss the issue with me, perhaps you'd have the courtesy not to discuss me with someone else. I didn't ask you to jump in when I replied to Quill - you did that all by yourself and then came out with some vague waffle.

Oh, I forgot - you're a loud-mouthed idiot with no manners.

Oh, how utterly AMUSING; you've picked up your shit-fest attacking right where you left off yesterday {40+ posts just between you and Didgy-dooer} and you're jabbing at me about "MY MANNERS" --- very self-righteous of you.  LMAO 

But yet, again...let me correct your continuing wrong ASSUMPTIONS;
a.) I responded to a post that Syl had put up --- after reading the entire thread and all of your immature exchanges with Didgy-dooer
b.) you do not OWN this community - this topic - this specific way that the ADULTS try to maintain the conversational flow; but I hope & pray that you LEARN
c.) you really do need a course in 'how to win friends and influence people'...your posting methods have proven you quite insufficient and highly hysteria driven

And now I'll leave this cesspool that you've created and yet again --- you prove how you are your very own worst enemy when it comes to ANY TOPIC...

What on earth are you gibbering on about? I made my opinion of the woman in the video quite clear, and there was nothing "immature" about my replies. Then Quill made a reference to the Zimmerman trial in which he clearly indicated that the jury were biased because of skin colour, and I said that the verdict was correct and the the jury was not biased IMO. You then jumped in and started waffling on about something - goodness knows what. Can't you at least attempt to be more lucid so that it's clear what you're banging on about?

You're the one who's immature - your constant obsession with the caps lock key, your frequent use of childish smileys from your own stash, and the way you just gibber on and on indicates that you have growing up to do, even at your advanced age. You're completely histrionic, emotional, and ... just barmy.

Just to pick up on a point, and I know very little about American jury selection apart from what I've seen in films, but aren't jurors selected and scrutinised so that they appear unbiased and fair?

eddie wrote:Just to pick up on a point, and I know very little about American jury selection apart from what I've seen in films, but aren't jurors selected and scrutinized so that they appear unbiased and fair?

And that would guarantee that they won't fall back on their very own life experiences once they're seated in the jury room for their discussion and adjudication about the case?  Seriously...my first time as a juror was quite the 'eye opener'; and yes...I was naïve to think as you've posted. Serving on 4 trials and one grand jury later and my eye's have been opened completely.  

Surely all of those written questionnaire forms - the jury selection in front of the attorneys - the swearing in would enforce that 'do not prejudge this case until you've heard all of the FACTS' falls far from our legal system once we became seated behind closed doors!  That word usage was really SPOT ON.  People "APPEAR" what ever they choose to for a rainbow of emotional reasons --- our legal system seems BLIND TO THAT issue when we keep applying lip service to the Jury Selection Of Our Peers!

Humans often crave to become part of the jury system while others just resent the hell out of having to do their civil duty and carry that euphoric or discontent right along with their deeply seated biased/prejudice POV all throughout the trial proceedings.

Fair enough.
But don't the lawyers and their team do extensive research on the jurors, like background checks, social media checks (looking for racial post etc) and various other checks?

Not doubting what you're saying, I'm just surprised that the jurors and their lives aren't more scrupulously checked. I mean, it isn't hard to find skeletons - racial or otherwise.

eddie wrote:Fair enough.
But don't the lawyers and their team do extensive research on the jurors, like background checks, social media checks (looking for racial post etc) and various other checks?

Not doubting what you're saying, I'm just surprised that the jurors and their lives aren't more scrupulously checked. I mean, it isn't hard to find skeletons - racial or otherwise.

while the viewing public is provided all of those 'bells & whistles' from the TV's POV; that's not the reality of what happens behind the scenes in every court room in America - every day - any day! 
Funding --- $$$ that all time cost effective method that allows some really poor court appointed humans to retain their position and represent either their client or the state!
Court appointed attorneys are often {not always} but often the lowest of the graduating classes for the BAR Associations; not my proven opinion...just what my lawyer friends have told me.  But during the trials that I've been subjected too...I'd have to agree.
Funding for 'cost analysis for jury selection'; well...it was proven worth the mega bucks spent on O.J. Simpsons murder trial but few clients are able to afford such external professional data and it always makes good TV moments.

For Example: our county sheriff was murdered while serving a warrant for the perpetrators arrest and up coming domestic violence case - toss in some illegal drugs & fire arms to his rap sheet! This perp was warned ahead of time that the sheriff was in route to serve him the papers and obtain his arrest; wouldn't it been a great idea that the sheriff have his official bullet proof vest on besides only 1 other deputy riding along - also without a protective vest. Shots fired and the sheriff took the first 4 and was dying at the scene - the deputy was crouched behind squad car door trying to get a visual and call for BACK UP!
Trail date set and the announcement went out for how many residents within this country would be pulled for juror selection; plan on arriving and spend all day long for each person to be questioned and set aside as 'POSSIBLE JUROR' and wait!  They pulled 450 residents and this took over 5 days just for the jury selection process; loss of work - loss of pay - bored out of my mind - and listening to the number of humans making statements out of the courtroom area such as:
"boy, I want to get on this jury in the worst way --- I want to give that rat bastard the electrical shock of his life time to have shot & killed our sheriff" 
****
"oh, I want on this jury, so badly...I lied about being a relative to the deputy that was there...do you think they'll find out and kick me off"
****
"I'm soooo pissed that this is taking me away from my job/my business and the amount of money I'm losing; we'd best not get HUNG up on minor details when we get the case --- burn that bastard and be done with it, so I can get on with my life"
****
"Oh, I'll never be able to give anyone the death sentence --- despite the statement I made in there before the attorneys, I lied because I want to be seated in the jury box and watch everything first hand"
****
And it got worse as the final numbers were being selected after the first 100 of us were chosen; yes, I made the final cut but became ill with bronchiole pneumonia and had to take a medical written note into the clerk of the court and prove that I was under 'house restrictions' or would be hospitalized for my lung illness. 
Part of me was disappointed and part of me was greatly relieved --- this was going to be a horror of our judicial system regardless of the crime that the perp had done to the sheriff. 
Eddie, people LIE; they use their own emotional vises and agenda to obtain what they wish and what prejudices they harbor --- there is no method to get around how & what motivates humans to abuse our legal due process...but it happens.

I've had to testify for litigation before and have watched humans taking the stand - swearing to tell the truth and then sit there and LIE - LIE - LIE and it's a fact of life.

Right so really, if any idiot can sit on a jury, then justice isn't.....justice?

I guess I thought jurors were scrutinised - especially for big trials like murder, manslaughter etc

eddie wrote:Right so really, if any idiot can sit on a jury, then justice isn't.....justice?

I guess I thought jurors were scrutinised - especially for big trials like murder, manslaughter etc

Only if there's plenty of money from which ever side has the most 'POWER' and ability to pay! 

Our legal system's 'Lady Justice'  

Since the 15th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold.
The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of money, wealth, fame, power, or identity; blind justice and impartiality. The earliest Roman coins depicted Justitia with the sword in one hand and the scale in the other, but with her eyes uncovered. Justitia was only commonly represented as "blind" since about the end of the 15th century. The first known representation of blind Justice is Hans Gieng's 1543 statue on the Gerechtigkeitsbrunnen (Fountain of Justice) in Berne.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice

Rather IRONIC, is it not?

The Jury were not idiots in the trial.
There just was no way to convict based on the evidence.
Now to many including myself Zimmerman was certainly guilty of killing a child, which his own actions led to. That I think is beyond doubt.
The point was proving if it was motivated and deliberate, which could not be proved with the evidence

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Well, I thank you for your good fight in my absence, 4eva.  I seize upon this clip because it gives the comprehensive overview of the southern mind.

Normally I am pointing to a person who murdered a half-dozen people (Dylann Roof?) and saying this is the southern mentality.  But I can never relate that single incident to a mind-set.  
Here, I have the mind-set, openly stated and voluntarily explained...and I don't even need her to murder a half-dozen people.  This is the southern mind, openly exhibited, and manifestly on display.  Rarely, if ever, do I have the opportunity to display my wares right out there in front of you, the buyer.

So now I have the murders of Dylann Roof.  I have all the cop killings leading up to Black Lives Matter.  I have Ferguson, Baltimore and Charleston...and a woman voicing the racist mind in Wake Forest Baptist Hospital.  I feel like I've won completely.  Surely only the weakest minds do not get it.

Now then Quill, you've always said that one shouldn't generalise from specifics, and yet that's exactly what you're doing right now.

No it's a portrayal.  A 'case-in-point', showing the archetypal southerner.  

We have the statistics, which is what I'm alluding to when I say we shouldn't generalize from specifics; that's for another kind of argument.  For the past 2-years the Internet has been criss-crossed with cases of modern-day violence against blacks...by white individuals and white cops.  It started with the Zimmerman case and proceeded on to Ferguson, and Baltimore, and South Carolina, etc., etc.  So we are not generalizing from specifics, but rather doing an in-depth case study.

The numerical argument is another discussion completely.  This time we are just exploring the case theory.  Both arguments are necessary: 1) the statistical, to show it is a pattern or trend; 2) the archetypal analysis gives us a chance to study the intricacies in detail, identifying the origins, the internal linkages (e.g., 'victim-posturing' for 'indignation', providing momentum) and the consequences.

That's why I felt the clip was so important.  It provides the detail for the statistical pattern that we already know goes on in the south.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Now then Quill, you've always said that one shouldn't generalise from specifics, and yet that's exactly what you're doing right now.

No it's a portrayal.  A 'case-in-point', showing the archetypal southerner.  

We have the statistics, which is what I'm alluding to when I say we shouldn't generalize from specifics; that's for another kind of argument.  For the past 2-years the Internet has been criss-crossed with cases of modern-day violence against blacks...by white individuals and white cops.  It started with the Zimmerman case and proceeded on to Ferguson, and Baltimore, and South Carolina, etc., etc.  So we are not generalizing from specifics, but rather doing an in-depth case study.

The numerical argument is another discussion completely.  This time we are just exploring the case theory.  Both arguments are necessary: 1) the statistical, to show it is a pattern or trend; 2) the archetypal analysis gives us a chance to study the intricacies in detail, identifying the origins, the internal linkages (e.g., 'victim-posturing' for 'indignation', providing momentum) and the consequences.

That's why I felt the clip was so important.  It provides the detail for the statistical pattern that we already know goes on in the south.

You can't count the Zimmerman case though as that was clearly self defence. I don't know what you're referring to re the places you've mentioned.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No it's a portrayal.  A 'case-in-point', showing the archetypal southerner.  

We have the statistics, which is what I'm alluding to when I say we shouldn't generalize from specifics; that's for another kind of argument.  For the past 2-years the Internet has been criss-crossed with cases of modern-day violence against blacks...by white individuals and white cops.  It started with the Zimmerman case and proceeded on to Ferguson, and Baltimore, and South Carolina, etc., etc.  So we are not generalizing from specifics, but rather doing an in-depth case study.

The numerical argument is another discussion completely.  This time we are just exploring the case theory.  Both arguments are necessary: 1) the statistical, to show it is a pattern or trend; 2) the archetypal analysis gives us a chance to study the intricacies in detail, identifying the origins, the internal linkages (e.g., 'victim-posturing' for 'indignation', providing momentum) and the consequences.

That's why I felt the clip was so important.  It provides the detail for the statistical pattern that we already know goes on in the south.

You can't count the Zimmerman case though as that was clearly self defence. I don't know what you're referring to re the places you've mentioned.

I think most people count the Zimmerman case.  Zimmerman was just another murderer; what was significant about that case was the jury.  There, you saw the southern bigoted mind at work in a different way: A white man accused of killing a black man...hmmm, how can we get him off?

Yep, that case counts even more so because you see the southerner in another role.  This is how, for centuries, the KKK got away with their lynching and murders of black men.

eddie wrote:Right so really, if any idiot can sit on a jury, then justice isn't.....justice?

I guess I thought jurors were scrutinised - especially for big trials like murder, manslaughter etc

Any idiot can sit on a jury here too Eddie. I sat on one jury where one man could hardly speak English....he could barely manage to say the oath even with help.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Right so really, if any idiot can sit on a jury, then justice isn't.....justice?

I guess I thought jurors were scrutinised - especially for big trials like murder, manslaughter etc

Any idiot can sit on a jury here too Eddie. I sat on one jury where one man could hardly speak English....he could barely manage to say the oath even with help.

WOW, you just brought up a long lost memory; sat on a drug case and one of the jurors was DEAF, they the court appointed a translator for this deaf guy!  I felt so sorry for the sign-translator...she kept massaging her wrists and you could see the pain building behind her eyes.  The court stenographer was allowed to ask for breaks during lengthy testimony but this poor human just had to keep signing as long as there was 'ANYONE' speaking!  Finally someone from the legal team sent a note to judges chambers about taking more breaks so that sign-translator could pause for 10 - 15 minutes every 2 hours or so!  When the testimony got boring {as it often does} some of us Jurors were paying more attention to her hands and those signs then any thing else in the court room.  LOL  

I'd forgotten all about that until you'd mentioned the fellow juror with the language issues!

4EVER2 wrote:

Syl wrote:

Any idiot can sit on a jury here too Eddie. I sat on one jury where one man could hardly speak English....he could barely manage to say the oath even with help.

WOW, you just brought up a long lost memory; sat on a drug case and one of the jurors was DEAF, they the court appointed a translator for this deaf guy!  I felt so sorry for the sign-translator...she kept massaging her wrists and you could see the pain building behind her eyes.  The court stenographer was allowed to ask for breaks during lengthy testimony but this poor human just had to keep signing as long as there was 'ANYONE' speaking!  Finally someone from the legal team sent a note to judges chambers about taking more breaks so that sign-translator could pause for 10 - 15 minutes every 2 hours or so!  When the testimony got boring {as it often does} some of us Jurors were paying more attention to her hands and those signs then any thing else in the court room.  LOL  

I'd forgotten all about that until you'd mentioned the fellow juror with the language issues!

I never thought about a deaf person, or a blind person come to that and the difficulties they would face whilst doing jury service. They are entitled to have that right though, so I suppose unless they ask to be excused (which no doubt would be allowed) they must be catered for.

Someone who cant speak (so likely cant understand) the language very well has no right imo to serve as a juror.

didge wrote:The Jury were not idiots in the trial.
There just was no way to convict based on the evidence.
Now to many including myself Zimmerman was certainly guilty of killing a child, which his own actions led to. That I think is beyond doubt.
The point was proving if it was motivated and deliberate, which could not be proved with the evidence

Just a different theory.  The prosecutor under-prosecuted, or withheld evidence.  Isn't it interesting that they originally refused to bring charges against Zimmerman?  Merely another way that the southerner protects the white man.  Again, a classic pattern by which KKK killers got off.

We saw this in the Ferguson case, where the prosecutor, St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch, presented the case to the Grand Jury.  He most likely under-presented the case, because he vociferously opposed a motion to get at the truth: He argued, "a lifetime gag order that prohibits members of a grand jury who reviewed evidence in the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., should remain in place."

A misconduct complaint against McCulloch was filed subsequently in response to his highly-criticized oversight of the Ferguson grand jury proceedings.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You can't count the Zimmerman case though as that was clearly self defence. I don't know what you're referring to re the places you've mentioned.

I think most people count the Zimmerman case.  Zimmerman was just another murderer; what was significant about that case was the jury.  There, you saw the southern bigoted mind at work in a different way: A white man accused of killing a black man...hmmm, how can we get him off?

Yep, that case counts even more so because you see the southerner in another role.  This is how, for centuries, the KKK got away with their lynching and murders of black men.

I don't know what most people count, but I don't count the Zimmerman case - either the shooting or the jury. He's not a murderer - that's actually a libellous comment. I saw a prosecution case which fell apart really - not sure what you saw. No doubt if you had been on the jury, it would have been a case of - hmmmmm, a "white" guy shot a black guy - no need for any evidence, he's guilty, take him down!

Syl wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:

WOW, you just brought up a long lost memory; sat on a drug case and one of the jurors was DEAF, they the court appointed a translator for this deaf guy!  I felt so sorry for the sign-translator...she kept massaging her wrists and you could see the pain building behind her eyes.  The court stenographer was allowed to ask for breaks during lengthy testimony but this poor human just had to keep signing as long as there was 'ANYONE' speaking!  Finally someone from the legal team sent a note to judges chambers about taking more breaks so that sign-translator could pause for 10 - 15 minutes every 2 hours or so!  When the testimony got boring {as it often does} some of us Jurors were paying more attention to her hands and those signs then any thing else in the court room.  LOL  

I'd forgotten all about that until you'd mentioned the fellow juror with the language issues!

I never thought about a deaf person, or a blind person come to that and the difficulties they would face whilst doing jury service. They are entitled to have that right though, so I suppose unless they ask to be excused (which no doubt would be allowed)  they must be catered for.

Someone who cant speak (so likely cant understand) the language very well has no right imo to serve as a juror.

I think it's absurd to have a blind or deaf person on a jury - never mind what they're "entitled" to.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:The Jury were not idiots in the trial.
There just was no way to convict based on the evidence.
Now to many including myself Zimmerman was certainly guilty of killing a child, which his own actions led to. That I think is beyond doubt.
The point was proving if it was motivated and deliberate, which could not be proved with the evidence

Just a different theory.  The prosecutor under-prosecuted, or withheld evidence.  Isn't it interesting that they originally refused to bring charges against Zimmerman?  Merely another way that the southerner protects the white man.  Again, a classic pattern by which KKK killers got off.

We saw this in the Ferguson case, where the prosecutor, St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch, presented the case to the Grand Jury.  He most likely under-presented the case, because he vociferously opposed a motion to get at the truth: He argued, "a lifetime gag order that prohibits members of a grand jury who reviewed evidence in the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., should remain in place."

A misconduct complaint against McCulloch was filed subsequently in response to his highly-criticized oversight of the Ferguson grand jury proceedings.

Are you now claiming that it was the prosecution which was biased? If you think they withheld evidence, why do you blame the jury? They could only go on the evidence they saw and heard in court. What evidence do you think they withheld?

Quill said yesterday I didn't understand the racist thinking, attitudes and therefore the legal acceptance in the US South...this was when I asked if this woman (and people like her) are ever arrested and charged.

But the hospital has made it clear that how she acted was unacceptable, she has been dismissed, and people are up in arms about her conduct towards the black family.

So I still don't understand why it's considered acceptable in this day and age to treat a person so badly because she was white (entitled) and he was black (unworthy)

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think most people count the Zimmerman case.  Zimmerman was just another murderer; what was significant about that case was the jury.  There, you saw the southern bigoted mind at work in a different way: A white man accused of killing a black man...hmmm, how can we get him off?

Yep, that case counts even more so because you see the southerner in another role.  This is how, for centuries, the KKK got away with their lynching and murders of black men.

I don't know what most people count, but I don't count the Zimmerman case - either the shooting or the jury. He's not a murderer - that's actually a libellous comment. I saw a prosecution case which fell apart really - not sure what you saw. No doubt if you had been on the jury, it would have been a case of - hmmmmm, a "white" guy shot a black guy - no need for any evidence, he's guilty, take him down!

You make my point, that the Sanford Police didn't even want to bring charges. Of course the prosecution fell apart. The southerners were running the show.

It's about as libelous a statement as, O.J. Simpson killed his wife. Everyone knows it. But the jury found him 'not guilty'.

Like O.J., do you think Zimmerman will sue and re-litigate the facts of the case all over again? If he did that the people who are supporting him would withdraw their money.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I never thought about a deaf person, or a blind person come to that and the difficulties they would face whilst doing jury service. They are entitled to have that right though, so I suppose unless they ask to be excused (which no doubt would be allowed)  they must be catered for.

Someone who cant speak (so likely cant understand) the language very well has no right imo to serve as a juror.

I think it's absurd to have a blind or deaf person on a jury - never mind what they're "entitled" to.

I just had a google round, deaf people are not allowed to serve on a jury in the UK.

Odd that someone who hardly speaks or understands the language can do so.

Syl wrote:Quill said yesterday I didn't understand the racist thinking, attitudes and therefore the legal acceptance in the US South...this was when I asked if this woman (and people like her) are ever arrested and charged.

But the hospital has made it clear that how she acted was unacceptable, she has been dismissed, and people are up in arms about her conduct towards the black family.

So I still don't understand why it's considered acceptable in this day and age to treat a person so badly because she was white (entitled) and he was black (unworthy)

Because you think with a 'RATIONAL' mind and a 'EQUALITY POV' about most everything that I've read so far todate. 

Trying to fathom the post dated mind-set that is so prevalent in the south and some 'Good Ole Boys' that live in other pockets of America doesn't make what these cretins say and do "acceptable" to the majority of us here in America...

But I wouldn't go over to my border state of Missouri and expound on the prejudices of 'white vs black'...because the Racial issue is alive and thriving in Missouri too!

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Right so really, if any idiot can sit on a jury, then justice isn't.....justice?

I guess I thought jurors were scrutinised - especially for big trials like murder, manslaughter etc

Any idiot can sit on a jury here too Eddie. I sat on one jury where one man could hardly speak English....he could barely manage to say the oath even with help.

That's utterly, utterly ridiculous.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't know what most people count, but I don't count the Zimmerman case - either the shooting or the jury. He's not a murderer - that's actually a libellous comment. I saw a prosecution case which fell apart really - not sure what you saw. No doubt if you had been on the jury, it would have been a case of - hmmmmm, a "white" guy shot a black guy - no need for any evidence, he's guilty, take him down!

You make my point, that the Sanford Police didn't even want to bring charges.  Of course the prosecution fell apart.  The southerners were running the show.

It's about as libelous a statement as, O.J. Simpson killed his wife.  Everyone knows it.  But the jury found him 'not guilty'.

Like O.J., do you think Zimmerman will sue and re-litigate the facts of the case all over again?  If he did that the people who are supporting him would withdraw their money.

The prosecution wanted to bring charges though. Are you suggesting that the prosecution only went ahead to appease the screaming masses and deliberately either overstated the charges or withheld evidence to secure an acquittal?

I thought the prosecution case was quite bizarre. They called witnesses who were clearly defence witnesses - like Jonathan Good. Why did they do that?

If a jury found Simpson not guilty, then he was not guilty in law. I don't know why you have a problem with that. Actually, it's an interesting case - a bit too obvious, if you know what I mean.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:The Jury were not idiots in the trial.
There just was no way to convict based on the evidence.
Now to many including myself Zimmerman was certainly guilty of killing a child, which his own actions led to. That I think is beyond doubt.
The point was proving if it was motivated and deliberate, which could not be proved with the evidence

Just a different theory.  The prosecutor under-prosecuted, or withheld evidence.  Isn't it interesting that they originally refused to bring charges against Zimmerman?  Merely another way that the southerner protects the white man.  Again, a classic pattern by which KKK killers got off.

We saw this in the Ferguson case, where the prosecutor, St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch, presented the case to the Grand Jury.  He most likely under-presented the case, because he vociferously opposed a motion to get at the truth: He argued, "a lifetime gag order that prohibits members of a grand jury who reviewed evidence in the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., should remain in place."

A misconduct complaint against McCulloch was filed subsequently in response to his highly-criticized oversight of the Ferguson grand jury proceedings.

Are you now claiming that it was the prosecution which was biased? If you think they withheld evidence, why do you blame the jury? They could only go on the evidence they saw and heard in court. What evidence do you think they withheld?

I'd like to know that too

Syl wrote:Quill said yesterday I didn't understand the racist thinking, attitudes and therefore the legal acceptance in the US South...this was when I asked if this woman (and people like her) are ever arrested and charged.

But the hospital has made it clear that how she acted was unacceptable, she has been dismissed, and people are up in arms about her conduct towards the black family.

North Carolina is a part of the deep South. This kind of ridiculous prejudice went on all the time in the 1930's. Indeed, it was repeated over and over, and sanctioned by the police, until the invention of cell phone cameras and the Internet. Now the whole world sees it, and there ain't no escaping for these KKK-symp types.

Syl wrote:So I still don't understand why it's considered acceptable in this day and age to treat a person so badly because she was white (entitled) and he was black (unworthy)

I agree with you...it's unfathomable. A sizable chunk of the American population knew that this kind of thing was going on down south, but until cell phones we could never prove it.

Martin Luther King was murdered in one of these plots. We knew it. We still know it. But it was passed off as a lone shooter, and a scapegoat was offered up....James Earl Ray, Ray died under strange circumstances, in prison, still trying to recant his confession.