The kid's switchblade was found at the murder scene but we must acquit because it isn't unique!The kid was heard threatening to kill his father but we must acquit because a loud train goes by occasionally and an old man can't make it to his front door in 20 seconds!The stab wounds were angled downward so we must acquit because the kid isn't taller than his father and switchblades are designed for upwards stabbing!The kid was seen murdering his father but we must acquit because the witness wears glasses!A juror hates his son so we must acquit because... eh just because, ok!They just let a murderer go free.
>>214506675None of the evidence definitively proved that the kid murdered his dad which is why they voted to acquit, the burden of proof falls on the prosecution and they couldn't even establish a motive.There are far too many retards on this website who fail to grasp how the American judicial system works.
>>214506675>The kid can't remember ANYTHING about a movie he just watched 5min ago but you can't remember the exact name of a bi-actor of a movie you watching 6 months ago so we must acquit>Also one of the witness was old so he must have been lying!
>the dad was trans but the kid couldn't remember her pronouns so you must acquit!
>>214506699>and they couldn't even establish a motive.You mean except for the fact that the kid screamed he would murder the father?
>>214506675They let him go because he was black and they didn't want to be seen as racist
Burgers clap when murderers go free then they complain when random stabbings occur on trains
>>214506699First off, the jury does not get to do its own investigation. The case should have been ruled a mistrial the moment juror 8 pulled out a knife he bought on the street to prove it wasn’t that unique, him doing so might have refuted a point made by the prosecution but that’s simply not allowed, they’re meant to examine what they were presented with in court only Also a lot of the “exculpatory” evidence was pure conjecture. Maybe the woman had her glasses on or her vision isn’t all that bad or those weren’t really glasses marks on her nose. Maybe the old man was able to limp over to the door in time, they have no actual evidence he lied. The one dude not being able to remember a movie he saw like a week ago is not the same as not being able to remember a movie you supposedly just saw. Etc.
>>214507170>The one dude not being able to remember a movie he saw like a week ago is not the same as not being able to remember a movie you supposedly just saw.It wasn't even that, he remembered almost all of what he was asked but got one obscure detail partly wrong, which the demagogue then equated to the kid's failure to remember a single thing.
>>214507170The jury didn't do its own investigation, they argued about the evidence presented. The juror who brought the knife acknowledged that what he was doing was illegal but he did it anyway to prove that the knife could be bought at any store. The old man couldn't have limped to the door in the time frame he gave during his testimony so everything he said was called into question. The smart banker couldn't remember a movie he saw a few nights beforehand when he wasn't under any pressure while the kid couldn't remember a movie he saw immediately after learning his dad was murdered. The prosecution should have realized that the woman's eyesight was important and asked her about it while she was testifying, they were sloppy.If you actually watched the movie and paid attention then these questions were all answered for you.
>>214507240Juror 8 went out and bought a near identical knife to refute a point made in court that the murder weapon was supposedly unique Would that have been an excellent point if it had been made by the defense? Yes, but it wasn’t, and you are specially instructed when serving as a juror not to go out and try to do things on your own, you are told to consider only what is presented to youFor example a case in my area was ruled a mistrial out where a woman was drowned in her bathtub. The husband was charged with drowning her, defense said she fell asleep or passed out and drowned. A juror went home, tested out several of the defenses claims in his own tub, and reported this back to the jury during deliberations. Another juror reported him and the judge ruled it a mistrial because, again, you literally just can’t do that The reason is, both sides in the adversarial system are meant to have their say about any piece of evidence or testimony. The prosecution never got a chance to address the idea that juror 8 was able to buy that knife on the street. The defense doesn’t get surprise evidence brought in after the trial is dime by someone not even on the defense team,
>>214507240Also, they can’t prove the man couldn’t have run over to the door, even people with limps can move fast if they want to, it’s just gonna hurt. The man was slow, not disabled. The kid being unable to even name a movie he just saw a couple hours ago is significant, shock doesn’t magically erase your memory. The prosecution’s job was not to find flaws with their own witness, that’s the defenses job and the jury is not meant to do their job for them with conjecture.
That nigger was guilty as fuck
>>214507240So it's ok for the jury to just assume one of the witness lied because he was old and therefor should not listen to ANYTHING the witness had to say?
>>214507300Should the other jurors have reported him to the judge? Yes probably and Henry Fonda acknowledges he broke the law, but they didn't. His point was never to prove the kid was innocent but that the prosecution's arguments fell apart under scrutiny and in a murder trial the evidence should be airtight.
>>214507415Again, retard, you’re not getting this through your thick skull. It’s not just that the knife is illegal to buy. It’s the fact that buying it and bringing it in violates the rules given to jurors. By introducing it he has invalidated the jury deliberations and thus the trial should rightfully have been ruled a mistrial. Get this through your head: the jury’s job in the American system is to consider only what is presented in court
>>214507415except the arguments don't fall apart, the kid still just happened to lose the exact type of knife that was used to commit the murder on the exact date that the murder took place. that someone else could have acquired a similar knife is irrelevant, it's still enormously suspect. you must be a believer in coincidence
I guess the dad stabbed himself
>>214506827That’s not a motive, retard.
>>214506699>too many retards on this website who fail to grasp how the American judicial system works.including you
>>214507513Anger is absolutely a motive. It motivates murders every day. Fuck are you on about. The prosecutor does not have to prove the specific thing you’re mad about to get a conviction.People are convicted with no motive all the time when the evidence is clear. Sometimes there is no motive, the person was insane.
>>214507240>The prosecution should have realized that the woman's eyesight was important and asked her about it while she was testifying, they were sloppy.The reason you can't take this into account (as it wasn't brought up in court) is that both the prosecution and the defense must be able to weigh in on it. If they were, then the woman in question may simply have been asked about her sight by both sides. Maybe she does wear glasses, maybe the markings were from something else. Maybe she wears glasses and was wearing them when she looked out of the window. Maybe she's farsighted and the glasses are for reading, so she would have no problem seeing out the window without the glasses. Maybe the reason the defense never brought this up is because they already asked her this outside and before the trial and arrived at the conclusion that it was a pointless line of argument because she was wearing her glasses at the time, or didn't need them, and so it's a useless thing to mention for them. In any case, both prosecution and defense will have the opportunity to dispute it and do things as obvious as asking the woman in question. Whereas what the jurors do is unopposedly count their assumption as evidence. Their intent is to acquit, so they say she needs glasses, is nearsighted, and wasn't wearing them when she looked out of the window. If they intended to declare him guilty, they could just assume she's farsighted, or was wearing glasses, or doesn't need them. There are assumptions for all tastes.
>>214506675is this a movie I can watch with my gf or will she find it boring?
>>214506675
Where's the "Yes Ivan" schizo?
>>214506675>retards itt missing the point this badly
>>214506699/Thread
>>214507415In what way did the kid need to have some custom puerto Rican kid knife instead of fucking.....any knife, also to sit in silence as a juror after going out of your way to buy a knife is so politically motivated I'd immediately report them and lean back on my guilty verdict knowing homos are out doing homework to subvert me
