>>220602097
They're just rotten. You know who I mean.

File: 1741381237335063.png (151 KB, 375x463)

151 KB PNG

>>220602113
Youngsters? Yeah, today's generation is pretty rotten but this movie came out in 1957.

>>220602097
he didn't

>>220602172
He means greasers. We've got a real greaser problem these days

File: rock-cow-eyebrow-raise.mp4 (1.18 MB, 480x640)

1.18 MB MP4

>>220602296
The evidence pointing out that he did it far outweights the evidence pointing out that he didnt do it, but according to this movie's stupid logic, unless that nigga showed up on a police station, covered in blood, holding a knife in one hand, his dad's decapitated head on the other, while screaming "I KILLED MY FATHER!", he is 100% guilt free.

>he didn't because uhh anyone could have done it and there's NO reason to believe that those multiple witnesses who had no personal connection to the crime wouldn't have lied because... they want attention or something
Wow cool high-trust society you have there

>>220602296
he absolutely did, but him murdering his father wasn't actually the point of the movie.

>>220602395

If the Prosecution can't identify and explain basic inconsistencies with the evidence they provided, that's their fault - literally, the burden of proof is on them.
They can't just submit 1000 pieces of weak evidence that helps their case and then get mad when a jury says "wtf lol"

I wish people understood how courts work

>>220602395
>The evidence pointing out that he did it far outweights the evidence pointing out that he didnt do it
nigger do us a favor and watch the movie again, all the "evidence" gets dismantled. its CLEAR he didnt do it and was just a convenient scapegoat for a lazy justice system and biased jurors.
the entire point of the movie is that you need to look closer and try to examine the case at hand, not pretend its an open and shut case because of circumstance and convenience. theres a persons freedom at stake here, it deserves at least a thorough conversation.

>>220602097
Jewish

>>220602395
You don’t need contradicting evidence to dismiss presented evidence

>>220602553

Thats retarded. Show the defense videos of your average chimpout then ask them to explain consistencies and motives and logic.

>>220602097
Puerto ricans like knives

>>220602571
All the "dismatling" was just a bunch of retarded conjectures.
>maybe that lady didnt actually see him because she uses glasses
>maybe he doesnt remember the movie because he was too stressed out
>maybe he really was movie-theatre but no one working there remembered him because "reasons"
The only thing that could make him innocent is the knife, but that would result in a mistrial.

>>220602097
If we held our scientific principles to the same scrutiny as this court case, none of them would stand

>>220602553
>weak evidence
Uncontested facts presented by the prosecution:
1. He had a fight with his father just prior to the murder.
2. He left afterward and purchased a knife identical to the murder weapon.
3. He claimed he could not produce the knife he purchased because it "fell through a hole in his pocket" at some point that night after purchasing it but before his father was murdered with an identical knife.
4. His alibi was that he went to a movie theater and watched movies until 3am. Nobody at the theater remembered seeing him there, and he could not give the name of a single film he watched while there.

>>220602097
>white people bad.
cool, great. fuck off.

>>220602097
The Talmud told him to.

>>220602592
>Show the defense videos of your average chimpout then ask them to explain consistencies and motives and logic.

The Defense doesn't actually have to do anything. The burden of proof isn't on the defense because innocence is presumed by default.
But retards don't understand law or courts so they assume court cases are anime battles between two opposing sides in equal opposition. They're fucking not.

The obvious conclusion is that an effective prosecution would themselves consider a Juror's arguments and close those gaps in their argumentation. For example you can't just say a knife is unusual or rare, you need an expert to come in and confirm that. You can't just bring in Witnesses and then conveniently forget to mention their condition or where they were at pivotal moments, then fail to account for periods in-between stated events.

The irony of court systems is that people participating in them but who aren't explicitly legal workers have to contend with 50 years of shit TV that misrepresents the process, and so ordinary people now go into Juries already biased in favour of an assumption that ultimately favours the Prosecuton - that they have to consider both sides equally when actually, they don't.

>>220602744
He still can’t reliably be placed at the scene of the crime. There’s no reason to assume that he WAS there because the witnesses were clearly full of shit and don’t have a clue what really happened. We don’t know anything about the victim outside of him being the kid’s father so there could be a million reasons someone would want to merc him, or none at all. We just don’t know.

>>220602813
You're confusing (near) absolute doubt with reasonable doubt, my boy. If we had to satisfy absolute doubt, no one would ever get convicted.

>>220602571
no, not even close. the only thing that happened was that a sliver of doubt was cast on a handful of pieces of eye witness testimony. none of it was actually disproved at all and it remains an almost certainty that he did murder his father. the movie was ultimately a piece of jewish propaganda to weaken the American justice system in the public zeitgeist so that they could more easily wriggle themselves out of criminal charges in the future.

>>220602744

Exactly, none of that proves anything.

What, you thought that was a slamdunk? You don't even have a Witness seeing the murder? Not even a dubiously produced confession?

File: 61KmjMh5ShL._AC_UF1000,10(...).jpg (115 KB, 1000x925)

115 KB JPG

>>220602810
>court cases are anime battles between two opposing sides in equal opposition
yeah why would people think that

Yeah he just happens to go alone to the movies and nobody saw him there and he doesn't remember what movie it was.

>>220602851
You're saying you need a witness or a confession to convict? A person with motive, no alibi, and had bought the murder weapon isn't sufficient? That means, the real murderer would've been someone who:
1. Killed the father right after the fight, for some unknown reason
2. Bought the same knife to either frame the kid or due to extreme coincidence
3. Was not seen by any witness
Basically, for the kid to be innocent, the real murderer must've conducted a perfect murder, and have been extremely lucky (lottery-winning levels of luck, 1 in a million).
Is that a REASONABLE doubt?

>>220602813
he had the motive, he purchased a weapon identical to the murder weapon mere moments before the murder, and there were multiple different eye witnesses corroborating a general timetable of events. do you think it's more likely that every single eye witness was conspiring to lie with each other about when they saw and heard him, and that the boy was telling the truth that he bought and then lost a knife identical to the one that killed his father moments before his fathers murder then went to spend several hours at the theater without remembering a single movie he saw, or is it more likely that he did in fact do it and is retarded and a bad liar.

>>220602967

It was a murder?

>>220602928
in the 50s, theaters just ran movies on a loop open to close with newsreels every 45 minutes

I'm remembering back to when we watched this movie in an English class in the early 2000s and I find it funny that in hind sight it was the girls and LGPTQs that thought he was innocent while all the dudes thought he was guilty as hell.

>>220602998
>the old man committed suicide by stabbing himself at an impractical low angle and bled out
very good poirot. your next trick?

>>220602571
actually the point of the movie is that acquittal is inherently good, the only reason you'd ever convict someone is if you're racist

>>220602097
The reason he's not black is because if he was then the film's audience back then would have just assumed he did it even in the end.

>>220602744
>1.
Perhaps he fought with his father all the time. Not uncommon in some families.
>2.
Isn't he a poor minority? He might live in a bad part of town and want protection.
>3.
That's not implausible though. Or maybe he lost it doing something else illegal. Maybe he gave it to a friend who used it in another crime.
>4.
How many people are working at a movie theater until 3am?

You're attempting to show he's an untrustworthy person but untrustworthy doesn't imply he did a murder.
He might be a petty criminal that doesn't want to get in trouble by confessing to the fact he was out thieving.

>>220602998
>I'm pretending not to understand?
why do leftists hate the idea of convicting violent murderers?

>>220602967
>2.
This is dealt with in the film. It's a fairly common knife being sold in markets around the city.

reminder: the witnesses in my cousin vinny are lifted directly from 12 angry men, the difference is the defense actually does something in the former.

also, had the defense done literally anything, any cross examination, anything, the questions of the man's limp, the woman's vision, and the absurdity of calling a mass-produced switchblade "unique" would've come up and the prosecution would've had the chance to re-validate the witness testimony, if it could have been at all.

>>220603127
>violent murderers
Are there any other kind?

File: 1728369743506404.png (443 KB, 1437x1098)

443 KB PNG

>>220602395
>evidence pointing out that he didnt do it
If there's evidence pointing out that he didn't do it then wtf is your point even?
>blind ass lady she saw him
>old man who physically couldn't have reached him said he did
>he was able to tell which movies were being played at the time of the crime
>2>1 therefore he should be executed

>>220603054
>there is only murder and suicide

>>220602928
That doesn't imply he did the murder. You could say he's deceitful but he may have other reasons for that. He might be a petty criminal that was doing some other crime that night. He might be cheating on his gf with somebody else.

Newsflash:
If he was innocent, the movie wouldn't work. Ya know why? Because then you lot would just call it a piece of liberal propaganda tearjerker where a poor innocent angel is sent to the gas chamber.
As weird as it sounds, for the movie to make its point without being sentimental trash then he HAS to be guilty.

>>220603095
the overwhelming majority of the film's audience still thought he did it anyway, back then and still today, because he did do it. but again, the point of the movie isn't about him murdering his father (which he did do).

hell, they once asked members of the supreme court about it and even the leftist judges were like at *best* there would have been a mistrial because juror 8 was doing his own research outside of the court and presenting outside information to the other jurors thus tainting deliberations, but there's basically zero chance he would have been found unanimously innocent.

>>220603145
Are you retarded? A very particular kind of switchblade can never be more commonplace than any model of available firearm which is no doubt a much more frequent murder weapon used in trials.
>>220603175
>he stabbed himself at a low angle by accident

>>220603157
yes, of course. there are many ways to murder, and not all of them are violent. leftists seem to really love the violent ones, though. is it because most leftists are women or submissive estrogen-boys who get horny at violence?

>>220603222
okay, we've established you can think in something other than a binary, as you acknowledge at least three ways a person can die.

now feel free to look up all the different criminal charges surrounding a "wrongful death."

File: 1752416973499201.png (465 KB, 512x628)

465 KB PNG

>>220602097
is t-that an... Italian?

>>220603209
Feel free to elaborate. You can't, but feel free to.

>>220603246
>he died of a heart attack but fell on top of the knife, it wasn't actually the murder weapon
keep going

>>220602097
He had to get it on.

>>220603261
No, it's a Sicilian.

>>220603222
It's not "very particular" as another juror was able to go out and buy its likeness within an hour or two.

>>220603278
okay, so all you're capable of is binary thought, and you have no ability to comprehend the multiple types of "wrongful death."

>>220603303
Damn you're right. 1950's new york just had this sudden fashion craze for zebra striped switch blades. everyone was buying one!
>>220603313
>I learned a new legal phrase on wikipedia so now I will use it indiscriminately without respect to the fictional trial in question. I am very smart.

>>220602967
>>220602993
It feels like you fags haven't even watched the movie, you are literally repeating the arguments that get initially made by the jurors (that get demolished in the movie).
>le knife
Is common and isn't unique at all
>movies
If you were actually watching, the film makes it clear that while in the initial questioning(where he was getting beaten up) he couldn't tell what were the movies, he later does
>witnesses
You mean the ones that get proven to be unreliable, physically unable to perform the actions they said they did and their stories don't even add up once brought together?

>>220603313
Was the wop on trial for wrongful death, or was he on trial for murder?

>>220602097
lmao that gremlin came out of the womb with a 750 credit score and a rich uncle named Ari

>>220603341
Juror #8 didn't "prove" anything, he just made a series of unreasonable conjectures, then piled them together into an even more unreasonable heap, and guilt-tripped everyone else into believing it. Most likely, he was the murderer

>>220603348
he was on trial for first degree murder. the evidence didn't support first degree murder. nowadays they charge for every possible degree of murder, just in case they can't get first degree to stick, unless they're extremely confident.

Hell, with serial killers they'll only charge for one or two of the murders, to prevent weak evidence in the other murders from tainting the evidence they have for specific murders.

>>220603331
>1950's new york just had this sudden fashion craze for zebra striped switch blades. everyone was buying one!
In the context of the film, it's a commonly sold knife and a juror with seemingly no connection to crime can find and buy one in an afternoon without much trouble.

We can sit here and discuss the reasons why: maybe a film had just come out in which a guy uses a knife like that. But it's not relevant. The point is that, within the framing of the movie, the knife is not unique.

>>220603386
>he was limping
>she wears glasses
>the clearly mass produced knife isn't unique
how are these "unreasonable conjectures?"

>>220603381
I don't think you understand how this works, he doesn't need to prove he didn't docit, he needs to prove that the evidence that he did it is bullshit and he clearly does.

>>220603406
The knife doesn't have to be unique. You're confusing reasonable doubt with absolute doubt. In your mind, unless the murder weapon is one of a kind, it cannot be the murder weapon.
>>220603411
Those are the conclusions or components his conjectures. You're missing the 3 or 4 component assumptions he makes in arriving at those conclusions.

>>220603341
>(that get demolished in the movie).
no they fucking don't lmao. for this kid to be innocent literally every piece of evidence would have to be in error and explicitly falsified. none of it actually was.

the rarity of the knife isn't even part of the equation. what's relevant is that it's the exact same type of knife that the kid was proven to have purchased mere moments before his father's murder which the kid then claimed he lost after the totally unrelated murder of his father.

>You mean the ones that get proven to be unreliable
casting minor doubt is not proving unreliability. the only thing J8 does is present a lottery winner-tier scenario in which the stars align and every one of the multiple separate eye witnesses """might""" be inaccurate at the same time. this would absolutely not actually hold up as "reasonable doubt" in a real court and flip 12 different people to a unanimous innocent verdict, as evidenced by the heated arguments people get into over the movie still to this day, and not only that but the fucking guy broke several juror rules by doing his own external investigations then further sharing those results with the rest of the jurors, which would have led to an immediate mistrial.

>>220603420
my comment clearly went over your head lol

>>220603489
>Those are
things he noticed because he was paying attention.

>>220603489
>The knife doesn't have to be unique.
The prosecution asserted the knife was unique. It was part of their case against the kid.

>>220603489
No you could make a case if the knife was rare but that's also not born out by the film. As I said, one juror went for a stroll and was able to pick up its exact make. A juror who we're not given to believe understands black markets or anything of the sort and in, probably, a totally different part of the city.
It's not an absolutely rigorous demonstration but it's enough to suggest the default assumption that the knife is sufficiently rare doesn't follow without the prosecution demonstrating it.

File: 1367643871384.jpg (56 KB, 500x500)

56 KB JPG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Citizens
hahahaha

>>220603406
>a juror with seemingly no connection to crime can find and buy one in an afternoon
he literally went looking for the knife to buy one because of the evidence presented in the trial and because of his gay lust for the defendant. he didn't just happen to have one beforehand by chance. if you don't understand why that kind of shit isn't allowed in a real jury then you're beyond help.

>>220603545
>things he noticed because he was paying attention.
Things he "noticed" because he had an IQ of 110-120 and was able to invent casuistical arguments to fool the other jurors who were sub 100 IQs.

>Casuistical arguments – Arguments built around hypothetical or contrived cases, based on premises the arguer has invented rather than drawn from empirical observations or logical movements. “Suppose a man could live forever. Then all moral rules would change. Therefore, morality is relative.”
>>220603571
This means the prosecution made a slight "error" in not snooping around ethnic bodegas looking for the same knife. It doesn't detract from the preponderance of evidence against the little dago.
>>220603583
The case doesn't rest on the knife being unique. It rests on the boy, having motive, and having such a knife, potentially using it to kill his father, then having no alibi to explain how he lost the knife, or where he was more generally.

>>220603545
things he made up because he wanted to be that little wop twink's savior then fuck him in the ass after the trial. this is why you can't allow gays on a jury.

>>220603643
yes anon, if the prosecution "makes a slight "error"" in something it asserts, then that assertion no longer has the capacity to prove guilt.

>>220603639
He shouldn't be able to find the knife going for a short walk in an afternoon around the courts if it's rare. A rare knife should take days or weeks to track down, if at all.
>if you don't understand why that kind of shit isn't allowed in a real jury
I understand why it's not allowed in a real case but we're not discussing a real case so we have to consider the facts as presented.

>>220603639
>>220603679
no ones trolled bro

>>220603683
>the prosecution didn't know that you could find this knife in a few stores around the city, therefore we have to ignore the fact that the kid bought one and the father was murdered with one

>>220603723
Yes. That is how it works. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

>>220603693
the perception of rarity according to one vendor is completely irrelevant and does absolutely nothing to disprove the uncontested fact that the boy, who had motive to murder his father in that moment, bought that exact kind of knife moments before the murder of his father using that exact kind of knife.

>>220603522
>for this kid to be innocent literally every piece of evidence would have to be in error and explicitly falsified. none of it actually was.
But they literally were lol
>the persecution claimed the knife was rare, it wasn't
>the persecution claimed he didn't know what movies he watched, he did
>the old man was physically unable to run fast enough to see the kid
>the lady that needs glasses to see magically seeing the kid do it in the night without her glasses from a great distance AND through a train?
>finally when you put in both eyewitness testimonies together, they were inconsistent

How is it not clear to you that its not J8 who is making an extreme scenario where the stars align or some shit, its the persecution who is doing that?

>>220603643
>It rests on the boy, having motive, and having such a knife, potentially using it to kill his father, then having no alibi to explain how he lost the knife, or where he was more generally.
As I said earlier, there are other explanations for that which aren't especially unlikely.
We know the boy is a poor minority and probably comes from a crappy part of town. He could be involved in other kinds of crime and he might not want to incriminate himself. He might have been robbed of his knife and might not want to say that for fear of reprisal of the person he might name. He might have given the knife to a friend and then gone and cheated on his gf with another girl who could be his alibi but who he wishes not to bring up.

>>220603753
reasonable doubt =/= absolute doubt

>>220603756
its the prosecution's job to prove that. (you) immediately believing them just because they're the prosecution just means you're a thoughtless gullible bootlicker.

>>220603702
your gaped ass is trolled you cocksucking queer. you probably want to fuck that little wop too, which is why you're bending over backwards trying to convince others that the little murderer is innocent.

>>220603769
>We know the boy is a poor minority and probably comes from a crappy part of town. He could be involved in other kinds of crime and he might not want to incriminate himself. He might have been robbed of his knife and might not want to say that for fear of reprisal of the person he might name. He might have given the knife to a friend and then gone and cheated on his gf with another girl who could be his alibi but who he wishes not to bring up.
Your Honor, speculation. Move to sanction this retarded faggot who wants to get this murderous wop off so he can go fuck him in his ass later.

>>220603781
did someone imply otherwise? no, they didn't. you just want to keep banging this drum were all thought/questioning is unreasonable.

>>220603769
you don't need an alternate explanation to doubt a given one. stop falling for this trap.

>>220603756
The boy is a poor minority who possibly lives in a crappy part of town with high crime rates. He might have bought the first knife he saw for the purposes of self defense.
>the perception of rarity according to one vendor is completely irrelevant
Of course it's relevant. It means there are, likely, many crimes occurring in which a knife like that is being used.

>>220603766
>persecution
opinion discarded

>>220603805
>the item we thought was unique... actually has le more than 1 copy of it??? HE'S INNOCENT
Ah yes, "reasonable" doubt

>>220603766
>>the persecution claimed the knife was rare, it wasn't
The rarity of the knife was not the deciding factor in this piece of evidence. The deciding factor was that the son bought this type of knife and the father was murdered with this type of knife shortly afterwards.
I'm not even going to bother refuting your other retarded points, suffice to say that they are all wrong and retarded and have already been refuted repeatedly in this thread, because you can't even tell the difference between persecution and prosecution and you're an obvious liberal pretending not to understand things besides.

>>220603832
histrionic strawmanning just makes (you) look stupid.

Yeah you'd want to have somone like J8 if you get charged based on "why would she lie" lmao fucking retards

>>220603825
True but to convince someone I think it's easier when you show another explanation is likely.

>>220603854
>the deciding factor was [headcanon]

>>220603825
>confusing absolute doubt with reasonable doubt again
damn so many low IQ anons here
>if you can present any plausible doubt to a given story, that means you MUST DOUBT IT!! INNOCENT!! LET THE WOP BOY GO SO WE CAN SPITROAST HIM
>>220603857
>no counterargument

>>220603854
You keep saying this but people earlier in the thread were using the rarity of the knife as an argument

>>220603861
if you're on trial, usually you do have someone like juror eight, except they're called a defense attorney. the kid's clearly did absolutely nothing in the courtroom.

>>220603881
You're the only person who thinks reasonable doubt == any doubt, not sure why you're projecting it onto others, other than desperation in the face of losing this argument, again.

>>220603828
>He might have bought the first knife he saw for the purposes of self defense.
You inventing retarded scenarios is not grounds for reasonable doubt.
>Um actually it doesn't matter that this kid bought a glock moments before his dad was shot to death with a glock, and it doesn't matter that he claims that the glock he bought actually fell out of his pocket in the 30 minutes after he bought it but before his dad was murdered with an identical gun, because lots of people are killed with glocks in general
You're genuinely brain damaged.

>>220603209
It IS a big political movie. Fonda clearly produced it to make an anti death penalty statement. The kid is facing trumped up charges based on specious eye witness testimony and all the anglos in the room are ready to kill him because he’s a wop with a knife. Fonda gets to play the hero saving a kids life. You’re looking at it through the lense of someone raised on modern, cynical cinema. The kid was innocent, there was no hard evidence he did it and it was shown the jury was largely set against him based on prejudice and deference to authority. It’s really that simple.

>>220603891
It's a component of the argument, not the full argument. Whether it's unique or merely uncommon doesn't actually matter for a reasonable doubt.
>>220603917
>le projection!!
You can't keep up I guess. Not my problem.

>>220603929
if the prosecution tried to insist a glock was unique then yeah, they'd probably get laughed out of the courtroom.

>>220603944
If you make a claim that is clearly wrong, and stick by it, then it is reasonable to doubt literally everything else you claim.

>>220603929
The scenarios themselves are reasonable. If you have to have it spelled out to you then it's that the arguments you're making don't point to a single conclusion. There's no reason to believe your one interpretation of the facts. It's not like glocks are a unique item solely purchased to murder family members with.

>>220603854
You haven't actually refuted anything btw, I'm sure if it was you on trial and the witnesses are a cripple who claims he went Usain Bolt mode and a woman with a questionable eyesight claiming she saw you do it in the night, without her eyeglasses, through a trains window you'd be pleading guilty because obviously that's such an irrefutable evidence

>>220604034
>glocks are a unique item solely purchased to murder family members with
well that was the prosecutions case so it has to be so

>>220603950
they never claimed it was unique. one of the jurors said it "wasn't ordinary" and the shopkeeper said it was the only one like it that he personally had ever had in stock, which again means fucking nothing. juror 8 says he bought it at a pawn shop, which means it wasn't some mass produced item he got from the local woolworths. we also don't know how many pawn shops he visited before he found one. for all we know he searched the entire city and only found the one other knife. the fact that he went out looking for a knife like it then showed it to the rest of the jury is grounds for mistrial either way.

in any case the knife was very clearly distinct enough that finding one other like it after specifically searching for it does not cast reasonable doubt on the one the son bought being the weapon used to kill his father shortly afterward.

>>220603969
The only claim I make is that you cannot comprehend the definition of a reasonable doubt, and unfortunately, I cannot explain it to you in simpler terms. I recommend using an AI to teach you.

>>220604060
Anon. innocent until proven guilty means the prosecution doesn't get to make mistakes and be forgiven. That's guilty until proven innocent.

The rarity of the knife was part of their case. The knife is provably common. Just looking at it is enough to know it is mass produced. You speculating on how long it took to find an identical knife is irrelevant.

>>220604047
the prosecution making his case isn't even part of the movie. did you even watch it?

>>220602097
He had to get it on.

>>220604109
>The knife is provably common.
You are simply too low IQ to argue with

>>220604099
>>220604131
No, you. You also don't understand what "innocent until proven guilty" means either.

>>220604134
"Innocent until proven guilty, [to a reasonble doubt]"
Your IQ is 90 tops. This is beyond your level of comprehension.

>>220604166
I accept your concession.

>>220604109
>The rarity of the knife was part of their case.
No it wasn't. The only mention of rarity of the knife in the movie was one of the jurors repeating testimony from the shopkeeper saying that the shopkeeper only ever sold one of its kind-- to the son. The context of this testimony wasn't a prosecutorial claim that the knife was unique and that it absolutely proved the boy's guilt. It was witness testimony establishing the distinctiveness of the knife and that it would be extremely unlikely that a completely different but identical knife was used by a stranger to kill the father right after the son purchased one following a violent fight with said father.

>>220604194
You're arguing with people who don't even know what reasonable doubt is. Don't bother

>>220602553
Uhhhh, none of that was brought up during the trial. Just some wannabe lawyer in the jury who went into business for himself and the communist party of USSR. China now.

>>220604202
He responded to me, not (you).

>>220604194
>the prosecutors didn't explicitly say something, they had someone on the stand say it, therefore the claim in the testimony is not part of the prosecution's case

what am i reading

>>220604276
90 IQ ESL

>>220604300
I already accepted your concession.

>man has limp, so its unreasonable to doubt he sprinted across his apartment, of which we have a map, in seconds
>its unreasonable to doubt the old woman saw the murder through her window through train windows from across the street through another window
you don't even need the glasses bit to doubt this one. that's just fucking retarded.

>>220604276
You're reading what happened in the movie that you're arguing about yet you didn't even watch, you fucking retard. The prosecutor isn't in the movie at all and the context of the rarity of the knife is from the shopkeeper who sold it, not from the prosecutor nor did the prosecutor claim that the rarity of the knife was integral to his case, because, again, the prosecutor isn't even in the movie.

>>220604524
I have seen the movie though. The prosecution makes the rarity of the knife part of the case to try to tie the murder to the kid. fonda has doubts about that, and proves the knife is common. read: he has a strong reason to doubt the knife is common. reasonable doubt.

honestly you just seem mad that you're losing this argument.

>>220603583
Oh, you trust him when he said he went for a stroll and easily found it? Based upon his behavior he called every single bodega asking if they had any zebra print switchblades, and after tracking one down went and bought it. Spent hours doing it.

My scenario has just as much plausibility.

>>220604575
>The prosecution makes the rarity of the knife part of the case
no. the prosecution does not exist at all in the movie. the rarity of the knife is second hand exposition of an eye witness via juror #4 and he never calls it "unique" nor is that some make or break aspect to the knife as evidence in the first place. juror 8 never proves it's common, either, in fact he proves that it's relatively uncommon by only finding one other like it and not at a mass produced outlet but at a pawn shop.

>>220604194
Juror knew exactly what store sold it based upon the testimony. He could have gone and bought one from that exact store afterwards, meaning the testimony was still true. That at the time it was the only one ever sold.

>>220602097
>Why did he do it?
because his dad was violently abusive, had punched him several times that day alone, and was probably abusive throughout his entire life. there is no mistake that he killed his father, and anyone arguing that he didn't do it is probably genuinely intellectually disabled. the real point of the movie is that his father deserved it, so he should be acquitted for it.

>>220602097
because he thought he would get away with it

>>220604760
>the prosecution does not exist at all in the movie
ah yes, the witnesses and evidence just magically appeared. no lawyers at all.

>>220603631
>The juror who had rebelled and wanted to see the case through is revealed to be a prosecutor of the People's Republic of China
>The final credits note that the actual perpetrator was arrested a month later.
BRAVO 徐昂

>>220602097
Low impulse control. Many such cases.

>>220603162
>blind ass lady she saw him
No evidence of this regardless of what mr Fonda says. Someone wearing glasses proves jack shit, could easily be long sighted or not have an especially strong prescription. Calling her blind for wearing glasses is pathetic.

>old man who physically couldn't have reached him said he did
No evidence of that either. You don't know how the old man's mobility was at the time of the murder, you don't know that he could have sustained a more recent injury causing him to limp, or that he has good days and bad days, or that he can move quickly in spite of a condition if it's an emergency and for a short duration.
You also left out the even more pathetic non argument being made that 'the old man has a nice suit, that means he's an attention whore and should be disregarded!'.

>he was able to tell which movies were being played at the time of the crime
You mean 'wasn't', and yes, if you said you went to the movies during that night but have zero recollection of them, even an inkling of what you saw, it's pretty suspect.

Here, i'll continue your broken logic.
>Well, how do we know that there even *was* a murder at all? Maybe that man fell over onto his own knife and we've been on a wild goose chase this entire time! It's possible, stranger things have happened!

The movie 12 Angry Men is hamfisted communist propganda made by a subversive. It is intended to undermine and demoralize Western society by convincing people that the enlightened and moral approach is to allow dangerous criminals off the hook instead of punishing them correctly for their deeds. The movie does this by painting the other jurors as selfish, ignorant bigots and portrays Fonda's character, in his white suit, as the saintly hero standing up for the little guy. Who wouldn't want to stand up against those troglodytes demanding the death penalty? You're not a dumb racist are you like them?!

>>220607576
Based, I still love the movie in the way that I love a stageplay, but I will never ever take the story or the message of it all particularly serious.

>>220607576
anon the old woman's testimony is she saw it from across the street through four sets of windows, two of which were on a moving train. you don't even need to talk about her hypothetical glasses to call bullshit there. They had the old man's map and testimony, they tested the distance from bedroom to door. he couldn't have made it.

And yes, the only thing you have is a dead man and the prosecution's insistence there was a murder, rather than say, manslaughter, or even accidental death, which fits the evidence much better. but the movie is predicated on being charged with cold blooded premeditated murder exclusively.

>>220602395
>third-world retard doesn't understand reasonable doubt

>>220608043
The case the movie presents doesnt provide reasonable doubt, thoughever.

>>220608124
if you have a plausible reason to doubt something, you have reasonable doubt.

>>220602097
Classic crime of passion. No real deep meaning about it. Just got mad at his old man and lashed out.

>>220602851
>murders that are not witnessed cannot be prosecuted

>>220607870
Not just brown hes implied to be a Puerto Rican.
Although for some odd reason they casted an obvious pencil necked jew to play an unhinged boricua.

>>220608183

Murder? It was a murder?

>>220608198
He didn't understand that the last time you tried it.

yeah, its the same guy.

>>220603155
>defense done literally anything
The guy probably got a public attorney, why would a guy paid in peanuts put any effort into doing his job?

>>220602097
youre telling me the classic movie 12 angry men was one of the first
>white men are the real monsters
movies out there?

>Fonda asks the glasses juror if he would remember the movie he watched that night
>He says yes and names it
>Fonda asks about the previous night, he says yes and names it
>Fonda keeps asking until they go back like 5 days, the juror still remembers the movie name at which point he asks if the juror remembers the name of a random supporting actress in one of the films
>The juror didn't remember that actress' name and this is presented as some big gotcha
That was so retarded. The kid watched the movies that same night and couldn't name a single movie, had no ticket and no one remembered seeing him there.

>>220603540
He doesn't have a head, he's a bot.

>>220608915
because you want to have a career in law, and "hes a shitty lawyer who does nothing" isn't a good start

>>220610872
his father was dead, he wasn't watching the movie.

>>220602097
Judaism

The prosecutions version of the story:
Witnesses see and hear the boy arguing with his father often. Witnesses see the boy with a switchblade often that looks like the knife used to kill his father. The boy got into an argument with his father and killed him. Witnesses saw and heard the boy kill his father. The boy cannot produce the knife because he left it sticking out of his father. The boy cannot produce a movie ticket, recall anything about the movie and was not seen by anyone else at the movies because he was not at the movies but was at home killing his father.
The defenses version of the story:
A random person walked into the apartment and stabbed the father for no reason, took nothing, and left. At the same time, the boy is at a movie he remembers nothing about. He is seen by no one. On the way home he loses any potential evidence that would exonerate him through a hole in his pocket. Any witnesses who place him at the scene are lying for no reason.

Guilty. Shut the fuck up, Henry Fonda.

File: juror _ 8.jpg (39 KB, 512x512)

39 KB JPG

>>220602395
The clerk at the police station said that he was holding his father's head in his left hand. But why would he do that, if he was right-handed?