🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BxsMvn.9Jz@ddsw1.mcs.com>, arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) says:
>
> Article 36635 (36 more) in misc.headlines:
> Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
>
> In article <BxIExK.Aqn@ddsw1.mcs.com>, arf@ddsw1.mcs.com
> (Jack Schmidling) says:
> >If there is any validity to the notion that a mixed jury provides justice,
> >we must define the word mixed.  It assumes that people have prejucides
> >and biases and by attempting to balance them, justice will prevail.
>-We are dealing with the jury of a murder case, not the
>-witnesses for or against some new welfare law being heard
>-before Congress.
> Your personal attack neatly avoids any objective comment on
> my remarks.
It does not avoid any objective comment, because your comment is not
objective.  The purpose of jury selection is to get people who have
NO bias either way for or against the plaintiff or the defense in
these cases in order to avoid accusations of an unfair trial.

> sentances.  The idea above referred to is sicko not cultural
> diversity.  Cultural diversity as practiced in this country
> is flawed and can not work as dreamed by the dreamers.
Then, pray tell, what is your so-called "sicko" idea.
>
> <The goal of jury selection is to get a group which consists
> of people who are not of the "kill the nigger"....
>
> Pray tell, how does this differ from what I said?
It differs in the fact that we are looking for as close to an unbiased
jury (at least in the case of THIS PARTICULAR CASE) as we possibly can
without getting a group of zombified numbskulls.
> >What the hell do Hispanics have to do with this anyway?  Why are they on the
> >jury? My understanding is that the accuse is a Negro and the victim a Jew.
> >What it the point in mixing Hispanics in the jury?
>
> >The point of "mixing" Hispanics into the jury is for the
> hell of it.  They were people not involved in the case, who
> couldn't give a rat's ass in Brooklyn either way, and not
> because of anything else.
>
> Why not some nice white boys from the burbs?
Ahhh, but the nice white boys from the burbs were not chosen from the
general congressional district that the rest of the jury was.  That's
one point, at least in Illinois, you serve on jurys in the area where
you vote (Representative district).  However, there were three nice white
boys who were in the jury and they didn't have to be from the 'burbs.
As well as six nice black boys and three nice Hispanic boys (or girls,
I do not know the gender distinction of the group, just the racial).
>
> < In your twisted, racist mind Jack, if there is a dispute
> between people of two races, the should be the only ones to
> judge.
>
> Sounds like you need to do a little untwisting.
What should I be untwisting?  The fact that there had to be a
Chassidic Jew on the trial when every Jew called to the jury just
decided to drop out for fear of being accused of cultural bias?
>
> > The trouble is, EVERYONE HAS TO LIVE
> IN THE SAME SOCIETY AS THE DISPUTING PARTIES (caps made to
> drive home point
> to man with point on head).
>
> The only point made seems to relate to your maturity and
> total lack of objectivity.
Let's listen to your lack of objectivity, Mr. "What the hell are
Hispanics doing on this jury?".  You haven't proven yourself too
prejudiced in the past by boycotting American made kosher foods
despite the fact that the only groups conceivably hurt would be
American Jews and Muslims who adhere to kosher diets and all those
who produce those kosher foods, and not Isreal, who has nothing to
do with the American kosher food market.
>
> > RACE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH JURY
> SELECTION.....
>
> I believe I juggested a Chassidic Jew.  Since when are
> Chassidic Jews a race?
Race, creed, gender, even favorite brand of breakfast cereal.  The
shit still has absolutely nothing to do with jury selection, and as
was posted earlier, if you'd have gotten your head out of your ass to
actually read, jews declined jury duty on this trial for their own
personal reasons.
>
> >Honestly, Mr. Jack Schmidling, if you have read this
> far....
>
> I always read to the end of the first response from most
> individuals.  However, it is now clear that you are simply a
> teeny bopper trying to take on a mature adult and are just
> flailing like a brat.
And you are mouthing off like a total idiot.
>
> If you expect me to read or respond to your next round, you
> had better try a little harder.
>
> <Just where did you get your education?  Inside a
> cracker-jack box?
>
> I think the important point is that you are still obtaining
> yours and it is clearly a long way off.
At least my understanding that people are not defined by what they look
like or what church they go to is not an important issue, it is their
attitude and their understanding which is important.  I've worked with
all kinds of different people from Cicero Hispanics to Maywood blacks,
Oak Park homosexuals and Berwyn Armenians.  I've gotten along with most,
and it's on a personal basis which I truly disliked people, mainly
because they were posturing assholes who enjoyed spouting off their
narrow minded beliefs to anyone who regrettably was in earshot to
listen.  Unfortunately, the entire country is in earshot of you,
and while ignoring you is easier, your views churn my stomach like
a 500 horsepower outboard motor.
>
> js
>
Doug, the ARF-killer.