>I mean, really, how do we KNOW this young man is guilty?>The murder weapon?>Well I just happened to have a knife on my person exactly like the one used in this stabbing case>According to the size of the victim's wound, it could have been made by this very knife in fact>The witnesses?>But the woman's eyesight isn't very good>How could she see exactly who it was escaping that apartment?>The killer could have been anyone>Even someone in this very room>And that elderly man who heard the noise?>Why, he simply has prejudice like all of you, and who could blame him?>Who could ever believe that the killer was, for example, oh I don't know...>A middle-aged white architect, who committed this heinous crime>Think of it, a plain, trustworthy looking white man>Going down to a bad neighborhood at night>Killing a minority for no reason other than his own amusement?>Why, it would be the perfect crime, who would believe you?>Don't you see your prejudice, everyone?>It could have been absolutely anybody fleeing the apartment that night>A criminal mastermind, perhaps>Why, he could have even been in that very courtroom with us and we wouldn't even know it>...watching that young man on trial, amused in knowing he was toying with his life>Nobody would ever suspect him, I'm sure he would act very liberal in public of course>And even if you KNEW he was a murderer you'd never be able to convict him>Yes, a charismatic genius like that would easily be able to manipulate... an entire jury>Providing of course, he could lock them all in a hot room with him>Wearing them down over time, bending their feeble minds to his superior will and gaslighting them...>Anyway, this kid is innocent, and we must all vote "not guilty"
It worked for OJ.
>How do we know aliens didn't just beam down and disguise themselves as the killer to frame him?>How do we know they aren't right now watching this court case as a sick kind of entertainment knowing this young man may die?>Well?Well?
>>219678398>>219678479Did you even dig up the entire neighborhood? How can you know?
>>219678398Honestly I spent years hearing about this film from people, even someone whose opinion I respected, and I laughed when I eventually saw it
>>219678398>I mean how do KNOW that OP is really retarded?>The complete lack of media literacy?>Maybe he's just avant-garde?>The refusal to pay any attention to the numerous times people have pointed out his inability to understand a 70 year old film?>But he could be a newfag>How he could not read any analyses of the film before repeating the same retarded critique that's been shitposted a million times before?>Umm well... anyway I'm sure OP doesn't literally have a mental disability and we should all give him the benefit of the doubt
>now make the knife fall out of his pocket
All I'm saying is, isn't it possible that we're in a timeloop, and the boy killed his father to break us out of the cycle? Thousands of years, repeating the same life over and over until finally he realized the truth and ended our suffering? Isn't it even the littlest bit possible, in even the smallest degree?
Is it not possible that we are all disembodied brains floating in jars and these supposed memories of "murder" are the careful stimulation of our brains by artificial electrodes? If we cannot know our world is real, then how can we say a murder took place?
>>219678398>18 year old dropped ~$70 on a switchbladeBit dumb if you ask me
>>219680138Didn't you watch the film? He's brown, he stole it
>>219678398Everyone is not-guilty without a confession, it's literally impossible in a common law 'innocent until proven guilty' jurisdiction to convict someone without a verbal admission
>>219678648LMAO good post anon, good post.
>>219680657They grew up in or close to communism and can't handle the idea of freedom
I’d rather a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned.
>>219680852As you wish
>>219680966There’s nothing wrong with enjoying succulent pubescent meal
>>219680657It's literally boomers (and agitprop shills) who can't fathom the idea that cutting corners for the supposed greater good results in a broken system where justice isn't equal>>219680852Based and literally this. This concept mind breaks so many so-called 'free thinkers'
>>219680852Would you feel the same way if one of the many guilty people did something bad to you and got away with it?
>>219682382I might be pretty sore about it but I’d go to work the next day
>>219682382Probably not but that’s also the point: an individual’s passionate rage shouldn’t ove rule the an impartial system.
Wow its soooo WEIRD that this thread was made verbatim nine months ago. so OP did you have this in a .txt file or are you just so 'tarded that you have it memorized? faggot lol
>>219678398>And couldn't that very Sith Lord have been, yes, on Naboo at the start, but rather than human...
>Lady may or may not have had marks on her nose from wearing glassesOkay but maybe they're sunglasses. Or reading glasses.Can her testimony really be dismissed for marks on her nose?
>>219683685You only get the marks on your nose for wearing glasses for long periods, day to day.
>>219680138They mention in the film it was $6.
>>219689567
>>219680852Those "thousand guilty men" who go free will most likely commit more crimes, and therefore kill several innocent people. So youre saying "I'd rather hundreds of innocent people die in the street than 1 innocent person be imprisoned" which is a bit strange
In an ideal system everyone accused of a crime would instantly be executed.Sure, a couple of innocent people would get caught up in it but it's a small price to pay for a perfectly crime-free high trust society.There would never be any crime whatsoever.Maybe there would be an initial period where people misreport stuff but it would die down as the benefits of such a system become apparent to anyone.Maybe even do a freebie of eliminating the victim as well as the perp, just so there's noone left around traumatized and spreading bad vibes.
Why does /tv/ seethe so hard over this film?
What's /pol/s agenda by trying to astroturf the analysis of this film here?
>>219695492They let the killer go.
>>219695465>Sure, a couple of innocent people would get caught up in it but it's a small price to pay for a perfectly crime-free high trust society.Ah yes, The Terror, classic high trust society right there
>>219695540Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
>>219695619The omelet being the deconstruction of western society, right Ivan?
>>219695647Save your off-meds notes for the therapy session.
>>219678398Irrefutable.
>>219678398If fonda was the killer then wouldn't he want to frame the guy, not exonerate him? Also, everything jack klugman is in turns out to be kino. Actually, a movie's kino rating is directly proportional to the amount of screen time jack klugman has. I call it the klugman quotient.
>>219678398>Evidence outside of the court, I'll declare mistrial to the judge, some other chump can deal with this
>>219678626kek
>>219683385>>219695647
It's amazing how right wingers decry constitutional rights the minute a brown person stands to benefit from them.
>>219678626>>The complete lack of media literacy?Damn you're a faggot
>>219695647>only russians want criminals in jail
>>219701628I'm not american THOUGH so I can point and laugh all you want. Our Napoleonic law system is superior to yours because your system depends on a bunch of fags with daddy issues menstruating while making a decission on a subspect. The last guy to concede the kids was inocent (while obviously he wasn't) only did it cuz "muh son" lmaoooo pussy niggas
>>219678398https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Catrine_da_Costa>a 1-year old toddler was the key witness (she was the daughter to one of the suspects)>the suspects had alibi except for a 1-hour window>during this time they murdered, butchered and bagged the victim>old people at a photoshop has a fuzzy memory of seeing the suspects 10-years ago, even though they couldn't identify them during a line-up>another crucial evidence was one of the suspects love for horror movies, he loved The House by the Cementary
>>219680471what a retarded take. You dont need a confession to prove guilt. Even circumstantial evidence is enough despite the bullshit said in movies and TV shows.
>>219678398I had to watch and media literacy this movie to get my associates degree like 10 years ago(later my BA). BAsed
>>219695465Yes that guy should immediately be executed for disturbing the peace.
>>219680471one of the dudes in the west memphis trio admitted guilt and confessed.. yet they proved he was innocent iirc
>>219701628The brownoid benefited from a non-impartial jury, and all the laws and rules broken by Fonda, ya pinhead. Sorry to say, but sometimes GUILTY people are indefensible, so this movie tried every thing possible to raise doubt in the most implausible, illegal, and retarded fashion possible.
>>219703345How can a 1-year old be a witness? They can barely point at things they like.
>>219695492>>219695516it's propaganda which has worked in favour for evilthe "point" of the movie is valid, the execution is notthe motive of the movie is therefor to undermine justiceanyone in favour of justice or truth should be sceptic towards the merits of the movieyet, its the opposite, people regard the movie as the ruleanyone arguing against it is evilthe hypocricy causes the seethe
>>219695465In your “society” everyone is dead
>>219680852>>219681848>the supposed greater goodIs there a limit to how many free criminals you'd stomach to save the individual? How about a million criminals? How about 100 million?
>>219701628It’s amazing how left wingers (retards) are only capable of making sweeping over generalizations of complex issues because it’s easier than thinking for 5 seconds
>>219681848If someone can't even muster a decent alibi, their life wasn't even worth saving. It's that fucking simple.
>>219681848Boomers are the only ones protesting against ICE kek
>>219680966constantly cutting corners is exactly how it got this bad though
>>219701628He had a fair trial subject to his peers. The movie goes out of its way for Henry Fonda's character to hang around the boy's neighborhood, forbidden today, and buy a switchblade, against the law at the time. The filmmakers had to bend the law to make the accused not guilty. I know you know how ludicrous that is.
>>219703522the mother (the wife of the suspect) put words in the mouth of the baby, recorded tapes of the baby saying stuff like "gugu gaga" and interpreted it as if the baby had seen the eventsfor "personal reasons" they never listened to the tapes during the trial, they just read what the baby had said from a paper, and two child psychics confirmed it was likely real (later on it was evident the mother had told the baby to say what it said) and no one really investigated itthe suspects got of free but the judges wrote>while we have no evidence of them killing her it is without no doubt 100% certain they dismembered her but since they aren't trialed for butchering and that crime is no longer punishable they'll get off freebasically condemning them while setting them free, the suspects couldn't question the ruling since they got of freeand yeah, stupid people, feminists, women/emotions, Media and religion and all that caused mass hysteria basically condemning them before they had a trial, very disturbing
>>219703697>being tough on crime MADE those judges be lenient on muslim rapists
Maybe sending someone to the chair based on evidence that doesn't really hold up under examination isn't something good people would do.
>>219703807>doesn't really hold up under examinationYou just don't understand how probability works. Each one of the scenarios Fonda presents is reasonable *on their own*, but for the spic to be not guilty they *all* had to occur at once, which is unreasonably unlikely.
>>219703697Cutting corners on immigration policy, yes.
>>219703807Yes but the prison system is a racket bigger than you and I can imagine. Just worry about yourself and your loved ones.
>>219678626>media literacyI WILL cheer for the humans against the disgusting ugly bugs.
>>219695492it's /pol/niggers spreading their aids again
>>219703861The old man being unable to reach the door on time and the lady not seeing the perpetrator clearly isn't probability. The murder wespon being rather widespread isn't a probability, either.
>>219703345What the fug, one of the suspects was a Polish guy who kept violently murdering people and being released over and over again like a fucking cartoon character. I thought Sweden being cvcked was a recent thing?
>>219703996Damn, I guess the father murdered himself.
>>219678398LETS SETTLE THIS MATTER FOR ONCe!!!!https://strawpoll.com/e6Z2Ar6pwgNI made a pollvote!!! (only 1 vote per browser session allowed)
>>219703929among many other thingsall the little things add up in ways that get harder and harder to fix
>>219704068I mean, the polish guy, like, he wasn't a bad dude I think, right?
>>219704115hahahah, only 2 votes??? you need at least 1000 if not more to convince /tv/
>>219704162>killed and decapitated his girlfriend?>clearly just having bad day, release him in a year or two
>>219703996Only the door one isn't. A woman having bad eyesight hurts her reliability as a witness, but it doesn't plummet it to 0%. The murder weapon add probability for the spic's reasonable doubt, and if it was the only piece of information presented to the jury then there was reasonable doubt but it wasn't the case since there was so much else to work with. Them dismissing the death threat for the reason they did was laughable really, as if it still wasn't a significant information.
>>219703345>The Burning +++eeeh, that movie wasn't THAT good
>>219695647Wait, so the current Russian meta for destabilising the West is just to discredit their previous one? Seems a bit futile.
>>219704115what idiot made this poll???
>>219703996>The old man being unable to reach the door on time and the lady not seeing the perpetrator clearly isn't probabilityBoth pure speculation. He didn't actually prove that the old man couldn't reach the door on time. The claim that the lady didn't see properly is only based on the marks on her nose. Nobody knows what kind of glasses she wears or what prescription they are, whether she is far- or short-sighted. That criticism was a complete ass-pull.
>>219678398The trouble I have with this movie is that it isn't interested in the truth at all. It's merely interesting in distorting the truth. Justice should be built on truth. Distorting the truth isn't justice.
>>219704362they already brought the far sighted part in the movie.>Maybe she was farsighted. What do you know about it?>I only know the woman's eyesight is in question now. She had to be able to identify a person 60 feet away, at night, without glasses. You can't send someone off to die on evidence like that.>Oh, don't give me that.>Don't you think the woman might have made a mistake?>No. >It's not possible?>No, it's not possible.that's how ridiculous that notion is. "what if she was far sighted? case closed" that's you.
>>219704411The truth isn't up to the jury, that's up to the proper authorities. That's how the law works. If you can think of a better way, feel free to write a letter to a congressman.
>>219703929true, bring back WAP
>>219678398When McCarthy said communism took over Hollywood this was a good example of one of those movies. This and to kill a mockingbird were the first "you should doubt yourself white man" movies
>>219695492It's a movie which means it goes against common sense and logic to be outlandish.
>>219704438"She had marks on her nose (trust me bro), that means we get to completely dismiss her statement. Case closed.", that's you.It's not even established that she wore glasses at all. There might not even be any marks on her nose, maybe the jurors had bad eyesight themselves. Witness testimony is always unreliable, but hers being specifically weak because of some marks on her nose is retaded.
>>219704606I did, the claim that she wore glasses is purely based on the supposed marks on her face. At no point was she seen actually wearing glasses by any of the jurors. Complete speculation.
>>219704578>She had marks on her noseshe did. i'm sorry to tell you this, but you're media illiterate. the bald gentleman with glasses is portrayed as the most rational man in the room, and he concedes that he saw the woman have marks on her nose, and he confirms those could only be gotten from eye glasses. that's part of the language of cinema, setups and payoffs. here, let me help your smooth brain out:setup: most rational man in the room throughout the movie is the bald bespectacled gentleman, he thinks the spicwopwetback is guiltypayoff: most rational man in the room agrees that the key witness is a wearer of glasses, thus her testimony is in question.that's how stories work, and cinema works its magic by having closeups of the rational man. don't reply to me again. i can't be seen conversing with retards.
>>219678626>media literacyYou should be violently beaten to death, while your mother watches
>>219704453>The truth isn't up to the jury, that's up to the proper authoritiesWhich is why Fonda presenting new material in the form of the knife is grounds for a mistrial. Hopefully the new jury found the spic guilty.
>>219704714Ugly disgusting brain-eating bugs deserve to be slaughtered en masee by humans.
>>219704714They're reading glassesCheckmate
>>219704714>if i type "spic" and "retard" on le 4chinz they would think im one of them Anyone can see you're a YIMBY redditor pro-crime faggot who loves brown criminals, anon. Next time don't use the term "media literacy", it gives you away.
>>219678626
Sidney Lumet is my favorite director of all time1. Prince of the City2. 12 Angry Men3. Fail Safe4. The Hill5. The Verdict
>>219704773what exactly do you think reading glasses are for
>>219704748>>219704802not really relevant to his point
>>219678398MOVIE PITCHBlack person on trial for murderThe case is very like OJ without actually quite being OJ.Jury assemble and give first opinionNOT GUILTYNOT GUILTYNOT GUILTY. . . GUILTY. . .NOT GUILTYNOT GUILTYGradually, using logic and reason, the lone voice talks the others round. They all realize that yes, they were just voting to acquit based on decades of anti-white propaganda coupled with ignorance of basic Bayesian statistics.Film ends on a high note as the judge recommends the death penalty and the twelve return to their lives with the satisfaction of a good job well done.Working title:TWELVE HAPPY MEN
>>219704865AI OverviewYes, you can absolutely wear reading glasses even with good (20/20) distance vision. This is common, especially after age 40, to correct presbyopia—the age-related loss of close-up focusing ability. Using them does not make your eyes worse or harm them; they simply magnify text, reducing eye strain.
>>219704894sounds gay
>>219704888His point is that "movie want you to think guy is right, that makes guy right". I can make the same point about the Birth of a Nation, which is a vastly superior film tbf.
>>219704726I agree. This film is a sham and is held up on fee fees alone.
>Your honor, before we set court in session we must all watch this 1957 Thriller/Crime film to better inform ourselves.
>>219680852Let's assess this practically for how one would implement it.>Everyone agrees it's open season on every cop and judg that doesn't renounce the role >Law ends >The state dismantled, or at least fully defanged. So close to Utopia. >But then anyone digs a hole and put you in it for fun. I guess it's enforced by mob rule >Anyone who imprisons someone is beaten to death. A perfect system. ... Unless you're accused of having imprisoned someone
>>219704865Reading. Not seeing people in a different building.Retard
The circumstantial evidence against the defendant was overwhelming and was easily enough to convict by itself, even if one disregards the testimony of the two eyewitnesses. Let's start with the fact that there was no other known suspect. Who killed the father if it wasn't the defendant? To find the defendant not guilty, we would have to assume that someone unknown (with an unknown motive) sneaked into the upstairs apartment soon after the defendant left for the movies and stabbed the father to death. Yet there was no sign of a forced break-in and no indication of robbery or theft. This account is conceivable, of course, but seems highly implausible. On the night of the murder, neighbors across the hall from the father's apartment heard the father and son having a fight around 8:00 p.m. and heard the father hit the defendant twice. The defendant was often physically punished by the father. Just before the murder, the landlord testified that he heard the boy say "I'm going to kill you." This item of circumstantial evidence was thrown into some doubt because the words could have been inaudible. An elevated train was passing at the time the father was stabbed, and the words could have been spoken during the ten seconds or so that the train was passing. The fight between father and son and the physical violence accompanying it provided ample demonstration of motive. In addition, the defendant had numerous previous brushes with the law because of violent behavior-generally a pretty good indication that he was prone to violence.
>>219705009I actually use my reading glasses to see people in a different building and I know of several others who also do that.checkmate
>After failing to convince the others, Juror 3 finally realizes that his strained relationship with his son is the reason for his certainty. He rips up a photograph of himself and his son in a fit of rage, breaks down in tears, and changes his vote. The jurors leave the jury room, now unanimous that the defendant should be acquitted.That's right chud, you only want to lock that criminal up because youe family hates you.
>>219704862fail safe is such a shitty movie. it's the equivalent of "Dr. Strangelove for dummies"..
>>219705066trvke
>>219705125it's funny because people admire Fonda but hate #3 when they're practically does the same thing; hold out against the opinion of the mass>On one level, the movie serves as an argument against the jury system because it is so unlikely to be replicated in any real jury room. If one assumes that the defendant should have been acquitted, how often would such a defendant be fortunate enough to have somebody like Henry Fonda battling for him in the jury room? How often does one holdout juror turn the other eleven around? Well, almost never, according to studies of the jury system. Holding out in these circumstances requires more courage and tenacity than most of us can muster. Indeed, the end of the movie illustrates this well, as the final holdout jurors crumble, not because they are convinced the defendant should be acquitted but because of the social pressure to give in to the emerging consensus.
>>219705201#3 gets too emotional like a woman.
>>219705201>How often does one holdout juror turn the other eleven around? Well, almost never, according to studies of the jury systemNon-white jurors decide on racial grounds, which is the real argument against the jury system.
>>219705066>Who killed the father if it wasn't the defendant?Doesn't matter for this case, this case wasn't about finding the killer out of a million potential people, it was only about whether the son was the killer>An elevated train was passing at the time the father was stabbed, and the words could have been spoken during the ten seconds or so that the train was passing.A guess either way because the testimony is faulty and questionable >In addition, the defendant had numerous previous brushes with the law because of violent behavior-generally a pretty good indication that he was prone to violenceKnife fighting not knife killing, at the time violent crime didn't have the correlation for violence ending in death and non deathNot guilty =/= InnocentThis type of case ONLY works back then, it doesn't apply to now so using rules/examples/hypotheticals for nowadays doesn't count since there is rarely room for any doubt because everything is recorded/logged/tracked
>>219705447>>In addition, the defendant had numerous previous brushes with the law because of violent behavior-generally a pretty good indication that he was prone to violence>Knife fighting not knife killing, at the time violent crime didn't have the correlation for violence ending in death and non deathMassive reach there.
>>219705466Only using stats for the timeIf you would like to do the exact math itself, lookup arrests related to violent acts/with a weapon and murder/manslaughter/etc. with a weapon and compare them and see how there is no relation Back then this is all feasible because the goyslop and goybeams were weaker The point is it's either a 100% yes not even a single minute fractional doubt, or it's a noProbably did do it, but they didn't do a good enough job proving it
>>219695492Midwits thinking they are smart for nitpicking dumbed-down inconsistencies in a made-up trial.
>>219705085Then you wear the wrong glasses.Checkmate
>>219705869I think I know what I'm doing, thanks, but for you to think you know what others doing, that I recommend not to do, since doing the others what'll be done to you isn't what you do shall be don't
>>219705592>dumbed-down inconsistencies in a made-up trialLatest cope just dropped. At least you admit it's dumb.
>>219678398>gaslightingFlubbed it at the end, he wouldn’t use that word. Good effort Anon.
>>219678398there's nothing pointing to the kid being black btw
>>219703970you sound like pro-imperium chuddie
how do I become an Ivan?
>>219708060Say crime and mass immigration are bad
>>219678398Was this guy what the kids call glowie?
>>219678398yeah, i hated this ridiculous movie as i do all court room dramassucked ass
>why yes being quick to judge and punish is actually good!
>how could you remember literally any of the details of the movies you sat down and watched for 3 hours after such a traumatic experience like being slapped by your father (which we already established happened on a regular occasion) and SEEING HIM DEAD (when we already established he was raised in and used to violence) oh yeah, still don't believe me? Well, what were you doing on an uneventful night where nothing of note happened 5 days ago? Can't remember, HUH? W-what, y-y-you do? W-well umm what was the name of the SECOND movie you watched? O-o-o-ohh you know that too? w-w-well ummm YOU GOT TWO WORDS WRONG CHUD!!! YOU COULD ONLY RECALL MOST OF THE DETAILS ON AN INSIGNIFICANT NIGHT AS OPPOSED TO NONE ON A SIGNIFICANT ONE! IM TOTALLY RIGHT!
>>219703571good
>The witness is lying so we will discredit EVERYTHING he says>why do you think he's lying?>he's old
If I even think you might have done something wrong you should fucking die. Only I should have this ability to judge because I'm so much smarter than anyone else. End of discussion.
>b-b-but what if something totally crazy and unlikely happened?!This fucking movie destroyed the public understanding of reasonable doubt.
The fact that white people don't understand that they should have a strictly racialist judgement system is the exact reason why they deserve this sort of "justice", and its consequences.Hopefully this mental blight of a subspecies will be expelled soon and we can go back to killing each other in mass genocides, as God intended.
>>219678398I seem to remember he went out and bought a knife like that for the purpose. That's how much of a dumbfuck you are. I bet you're a woman.
>>219710719I understand people defending the movie as a drama with classic performances, but anyone that thinks the literal outcome was reasonable is a fucking moron. Even famously senile Supreme Court justice Sotomayor said that while this movie inspired her as a kid to go into law, it’s completely wrong. Ironically though, juries are so chaotic it isn’t completely unrealistic; any seasoned litigator will have tons of baffling stories about what juries get hung up on.I don’t even think the defense or fonda had an alternative theory.
>>219680852>I’d rather a thousand innocent NIIIII- black men go to prison than one guilty white man be imprisoned.
>>219695647>the deconstruction of western societyis mass immigration and diversity imperatives
>>219680852>>219680966america in two posts
>>219704102Yup, some rando thug entered into an apartment building, climbed up the stairs, somehow broke into the man's house (no mention of the door being forced btw), stabbed a man and ran away without stealing anything.
>>219711681facts dont care about your alternative theorieshe was innocent
>>219711716>this is what leftists genuinely believe are the opinions of right wingers
I only watched the one with Tony Danza yet it makes no difference for these threads
>>219704115
>>219678648Underrated
>>219711681I was jury member in porn trial girl sued studio it watoo big and two women in jury all discussed size deliberty and saw ppl say we vote against cuz of penis guilt so all I said was>srew you guys I'm going hometwuu swooey
fonda is like pinhead.... he made no difference. they could've voted guilty and left in 5 min.... instead he wasted 40 lifehours n for what?
>>219695492because it's hailed as a masterpiece, shown to students by default and consistently ranked as one of the greatest films of all time even though it's stupid.And it's frustrating because it feels anyone who loves this movie can't see how stupid it is.The main character doesn't outsmart anyone, and only through a series of plot contrivances and members of the jury just tripping themselves up in front of him does he manage to overturn the verdict.It feels like the writers came up with the initial idea of one man overturning an entire jury over the course of a day, but lacked the intelligence to write it without the entire rest of the jury being completely retarded.I like the film, but it's not one of the greatest of all time and the writing isn't as sound and clever as people seem to think it is.
