So according to this dude's logic and reasoning nobody in the history of the universe ever committed any crime, in truth.
it was a different time
as long as the offender is an illegal immigrant or a black folk, they cannot be held liable. It would be racist.
>>223563232Add women to the list now. We're watching the final form of the reasonable doubt absurdity.
>>223563364no, the guinea dago wop was the accused
>look I'm just saying it's POSSIBLE she retroactively withdrew her consent after sex!
Does this look like the face of an innocent man? Look at the bulging eyes. The big nose. Is this thing even human? The nigga is guilty.
i'm English major in college right now and this movie is in the curriculum.the story is more about how the attorney for the accused kid didn't really bother to do a proper job. the old man testified that he heard the kid murdering his father but then with all the train noise and him being unable to walk, it just wasn't possible.
>>223563152This film was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public and conflate REASONABLE doubt with absolute doubt.
>>223563364they could have just voted guilty stillit was an example about how white people are spineless and more concerned with convenience than principle
>>223563469Jew actually. They've been desperately fighting the case of that one jewish guy who was caught for raping and murdering a little girl. You don't want to know what was done to the body. The girl was said to have been used in some kind of ritual and seems to match the type of rituals they did in tons of writings and draswings. But that's just...nonsense...Anyway.
>>223563559So we just ignore all the rest of the evidence because one piece of evidence is flawed.
>>223563152>Bro, WHAT IF something I just thought up right now was what actually happened?!How in the fuck did this absolute trash movie remain critically acclaimed for so long?
>>223563642What case are you talking about?
>>223563707probably leo frank.
>>223563364>first example of blatant Jewish propagandaYou need to watch more old movies.
>>223563642>>223563728>>223563707It's even worse than he described.The jew who did it tried to blame a black guy for the crime.Picture the deep south in early 20th century.This fucking jew was so fucking guilty the locals where like "nah fuck that" when presented with an absolute guilt-free chance to lynch a black.
>>223563697It's well written so it bamboozles the goy skillfully
>>223563152>and then the very racist man goes on a very racist rant>and one by one the men stand up and turn away from him>and then the last man says shut up>and then the very racist man was defeated foreverThis movie would have been clowned for months on /pol/ if it had been released today.
>>223563779>This fucking jew was so fucking guilty the locals where like "nah fuck that" when presented with an absolute guilt-free chance to lynch a black.
>>223563559You can mount a defense for someone in jury deliberations. That's why there is a whole fucking pre-trial, to allow and disallow evidence and defenses. To vet fucking evidence. Leaving that up to jurors to decide in one day, with no judge and no attorneys there is like having a defendant defend themselves. The other jurors were the defendants. They have no background is trial law. If they did, they would have called the baliff and had Fonda removed as soon as he brought his own fucking knife as new evidence, to throw him off the jail and into jail too. This is why an idiot like you, teaching English, shouldnt be trying to teach ANYONE about movies about the LAW. You dont know jack shit about it. You only know what the bias slanted movie allows you to know. And it's all propaganda bullshit!
>>223563152What movie?
>>223564657>You can mount a defense for someone in jury deliberations.Can't* mount a *new* defense
>>223563152Isn't it odd that several witnesses that don't know each other would all come forward and tell stories that 100% fit together. But every witness is discredited by the jury because stuff like>he's an old man, he's lying because he dressed nicely for court and is old>this woman is lying because she has a tiny mark on her nose so she's blind as a batDidn't they ever think it's pure crazy to even imagine that all these witnesses just magically collaborated to get a kid killed they didn't even know?And then we had shitty arguments like>uhm not remembering anything about a movie you watched 3min ago is totally the same as thinking that Joan was the main actor for a movie you watched 2 weeks ago and not John.
>>223564712No it's not odd. You're just racist. >gets up from seat and turns my back
>>223563152Libshit fantasy where you don't win the argument with facts, logic, and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, you win it by proving the other guy is a 'bad' man with 'bad' motivations like 'muh racism', 'narcissism', 'money', or whatever bullshit.They know that no honest person would pretend they don't have their own biases and baggage, so all they have to do is pretend they're a selfless, perfect little angel with no agenda then ad hom attack and pathologise the character and history of their opponent.Prove me wrong. PROTIP: You can't.
>>223563536Reminds me of someone...
People usually don't realise this but Hollywood was putting out tons of these liberal movies in the 50s. 12 Angry Men, Blackboard Jungle, a bunch of others.
>>223563152unless he personally witnessed the knife plunging into the father's flesh, he has a reasonable doubt. we are a nation of laws.
>>223566862There was no reasonable doubt, the evidence presented was enough to convict, what the jury did would have simply caused a mistrial and the guy would have been found guilty later on by another jury
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!
>>223563152>government needs to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before they can execute you or put you in prison>/tv/ hates this
>anon wants to be tried by a jury of his bettersYou don't deserve your republic, what a shame.
>>223567288>White people build elaborate systems to prevent manipulative theatrics from interfering with justice>jews hate this
>the remake made the racist tirade about spics said by a black nationalistThat's something you don't actually see at all.>>223567216>another jury will just convict anyways>ergo we must all just say guilty even though the jurors are not convinced, solely for expediency
>>223563364The point of the film is not the verdict but the deliberation thereof. Hence it's not riddled with flashbacks and mystery-solving whether the kid did it or not. It's just about 12 angry dudes in a room talking about a case.
>>223567341>ergo we must all just say guilty even though the jurors are not convinced, solely for expediencyYes, because what the jury did in the movie isn't allowed, you can only decide cases based on the evidence presented, bringing a knife in as evidence would have led to juror misconduct
>>223567448That's not the point. The knife thing that always gets brought up is bordering on a nitpick. The point was that the prosecutor's case was done so lazily that the boy barely had a chance to be properly defended before the court. That's the point. If the prosecution did not convince the jury for a UNANIMOUS guilty verdict then it's hung for serious offenses. Before 2020, only Louisiana and Oregon was it ever applicable to be non-unanimous.
>>223567522>bordering on a nitpickIt's clear misconduct for a juror to do their own investigation or to bring materials into the deliberation. That's not a "nitpick"
>>223564662Some american court drama.
>>223567574The point was to show that the knife wasn't actually a one-of-a-kind knife that the store only sold to the kid. The store had plenty. That's it, that's the point. Now was there other ways they could've shown it? Sure, but that's beyond the point nonetheless.
>>223563152Present it in a way that makes it more obvious to cucks: by the ridiculous standards Fonda 's character puts forth, there is not one (1) single person that could be convicted of anything related to the Shoah (and all previous judgements would have to be cancelled). They certainly have more and cleaner evidence on the kid killing his father than they have on any single concentration camp guard they sent to the gallows or prison.
>>223564662The Magnificent Seven
daily chuddie melty over Lumet
>>223563152>there is no free will>we can't hold people accountable for their crimesyep its true
>>223563152Pic related: the movie
I have jury duty tomorrow Really hope I don't get picked but if I do I intend to cause havok like this dude
>>22356466212 Sweaty Men
>>223563152I'm just saying if you don't change your vote to not guilty it's possible that this switch blade might somehow wind up in your chest.
>>223563559>but then with all the train noise and him being unable to walk, it just wasn't possibleOk, proove it
>>223563560Courts refuse to define reasonable doubt for juries.
>>223563152@Grok what does the Early Life section say about the director?
>>223563838The KKK even protected the lad, I'm not making up shit
>okay if the boy didn't do it why didn't the defense bring up any other suspects or possible motive for the guy to be killed>THATS NOT OUR JOB, OUR JOB IS TO LET THIS 25 YEAR OLD BROWN CHILD FREE!!!>good point! I vote not guilty!
>>223563559Its more about how if the defense attorney did actually question any of the evidence, the prosecution would be able to clarify it on cross-examination. Or situations like "do you wear glasses?" "no." "how many fingers am I holding up?" "two." "shit. no further questions." Also my cousin vinny is essentially the exact same case/trial except with more information and a lawyer who does his job. And also gives an alternative explanation for the crime for people who think you need another suspect to acquit the first.
>>223564662Twelve irate individuals
>>223569223Henry Fonda did. He literally walks the supposed length of the corridor the old man said he walked and it took way longer than the old man suggested. and the old man can't walk.
>>223564664yes you can
They should do a remake but make it about Lyndsay Clancy
>>223563152He was fine.The old man next to him sucked though.He was the exact type of geezer that he accused the on witness of being. An old fuck that never did anything in life grasping the opportunity to be important and noteworthy for once.
>>223563152So there was no Circassian, Armenian Genocides, Holodomor and Holocaust. I guess we were lied to altogether.
>>223567216>what the jury did would have simply caused a mistrial and the guy would have been found guilty later on by another juryNo that can only happen the other way in a criminal case. If a jury convicts and the judge thinks the prosecution failed to meet their burden he can overturn it and declare the accused not guilty. But if a jury decides not guilty that's it. Juries can even refuse to convict because they think that even though the accused is absolutely guilty, this prosecution or crime is unfair and they dob't deserve punishment. It's called jury nullification.
>>223569253No, it's just theory, not a proofAsk the old man do walk, in his appartementMaybe he was feeling good this day and could walk faster for all thing we knew
>>223563559>he story is more about how the attorney for the accused kid didn't really bother to do a proper job.If someone does a bad job, it means you are not guilty of a crime you committedIF THE GLOVE DOESNT FIT YOU MUST LET THE NIGGER FREE TO KILL AGAIN
>>223567574Every legal drama movie takes liberties with realism.
>>223563152Along with Captain Smith he’s the most underrated villain in film history.
>>223569329>this is how fast we saw him struggle to walk>this is how much distance he needed to cover>th-thats just a th-theoryyou don't know what words mean
>>223569165How so?
>>223569278Watch juror number two if you want a modern jury deliberation movie. It's about a guy who is on the jury for a murder trial where an abusive boyfriend is accused of murdering his girlfriend with a strong case, but the juror realizes he actually killed the victim while drunk driving. As implausible as that is, it takes its central moral dilemma seriously and is well executed.
>>223569334Yes anon, people are acquitted all the time for having shitty lawyers, as a lawyer failing at his job is not a fair trial.
>>223569334He never killed again though. Assuming he even did the first time. So not sure what point you think you're making.
>>223569404fuck off shamalyan
>aww gee guys, that defense attorney sucked so bad we have to make his defense for himYou think the state appointed attorney has some kind of "white" guilt perfect record?
>>223569355Captain Smith?
>>223566394>>223563642>>223563779they really are disgusting creatures
>>223569420Actually Clint Eastwood directed it.
>>223569165rightoids like you are incapable of understanding the need for shared foundational beliefs. what you interpret as intentional misunderstanding is actually them trying to get you to state your case without relying on nebulous bullshit like "common sense". lack of simplicity bothers you because you're a retard. you get angry when something you never thought about turns out to be more complicated than you're capable of understanding. your life must be simple, or else.
I wonder if 12 Angry Men threads' regulars have seen The Ox-bow Incident and what are their thoughts about it? Since it deals with the same humanistic core message that everyone is entitled to not be held guilty until proven. The big difference between the two is that in the Wellman film you have mob justice running rampant whereas in Lumet's the jury is a legitimate one.
>>223569467In the case of a film or a story, if you want your propaganda message to hit you need to demonstrate that it's pretty clear the guy didn't do it, like To Kill a Mockingbird, otherwise it looks like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too when the film ends and the jurors feel like they've done real good despite not knowing whether or not the guy actually killed his dad or not.
>>223569467They made a movie out of this? I read the short story in school and it is very short.
>>223569536Not all endings have to be tied shut and closed. Open endings are kino. If it ended like you propose would be more straighforward, yes, but bland.>>223569551The movie is short too. 70 minutes long
>>223569691>blandI agree, which is why the end should have the jurors kind of like "Aww shucks, I don't know if we did the right thing" and not "HURRAY ANOTHER BROWN BOY SET FREE!"
>>223569691>open endings are movie
>>223569719You could actually watch the movie sometime.
>>223569755I have, and the framing is far more positive than it is negative
>>223569783There's no point in lying on the internet. No one is going to believe you in the first place.
>>223569806Ahemhttps://youtu.be/fJzLnRrtu1Y?si=VybdqfpI8YG1eXK-
>>223563687He disproved the rest of the evidence too
>>223569824>proves he only just looked at the thumbnail
>>223569874>triumphant music plays as the 12 go about the rest of their day, the last shot of Fonda's face is him smiling as the music ramps up before he head onYou're being incredibly dishonest in pretending there is even a shred of uncertainty here
>>223569898Uncertainty about what?
>>223563536this is the worst choice made in the film, they should have never showed the defendants face, this is emotionally manipulative and prejudices the audience for no reason , whereas the rest of the film is borderline brechtian
>>223569923About whether or not the guy did it.The whole movie is a song and dance about how the guy couldn't possibly have done it, and it ends with the final juror being a racist loser failure of a father coming to terms with himself, giving a nonguilty, and then the happy "WE DID IT" music plays. If you wanted it to be a proper film and not just a Jewish white guilt movie you would A. Demonstrate that the guy absolutely didn't do it(which I'm sure they think they adequately did) orB. Revise the ending so it isnt so chipper about letting this guy off
>>223569963>About whether or not the guy did it.That's not their job nor their concern. What the ending shows is they're certain they did their job as a jury. At least those two. Everyone else's last shot is somberly heading out to render their verdict.You ESLs always get hung up on the idea that you can't acquit someone without another suspect. You can and even should.
>>223569998>without another suspectSee:>>223569165
>>223569960>show the defendant>the audience knows what the jury is talking about>don't show the defendant>the audience projects whatever they want into the place of the kid, with only the descriptions of the jurors to go on
>>223570014I accept your concession. That image is a self own, by the way. Its saying "being tasked to explain my position is enough to defeat it."
>>223570017exactly the 2nd part is preferable the first is hacky its like something rosselini used to pull all the time in his films to emotionally manipulate the audience
>He couldn't have done it, that was just a store-bought knife! The only way I'd believe he dun it is if the murder weapon was hanwei forged steel with his initials hammered into it
>>223570175Both are equally flawed in a narrative sense, was the point you missed.
>>223570212>2 things are bad therefore neither option can be better
>>223570203>prosecution makes it a part of their case that the knife is unique>the knife is not unique>there is now reason to doubt the prosecution in general
>>223570221yes anon, when things are equally flawed, one is no better than the other.
>Leos protect their cubs
>>223570222>the lawyers aren't completely infallible>therefore crime doesn't exist
>>223570041Away to reddit with you>Now what do you mean by redditThat's how you fucking sound. And is what the image is talking aboutDSP levels of semantic retardation
>>223570222he had to go out and buy it to prove it wasntanyone can go out and buy something to prove its not uniqueif he had it on him or one of the other members did, there would be a case for that
>>223570245In a trial setting, the prosecution can have infallible evidence, but if the prosecutor is a moron, the evidence no longer matters. Welcome to being a human being.
>>223570266If the defense is a moron, it's not the jury's job to overcorrect
>>223570248He didn't have to. He just did. He could've found a picture of it in a catalogue and it would've worked just as well.
>>223570222Dang, you mean the killer had to go out and buy a knife, the same way 99% of the worlds population would come into possession of a knife......
>>223570274All 8 did was ask the questions any competent defense attorney would ask. Hell, even if they did convict the kid could appeal for incompetent legal defense and overturn the ruling instantly, as apparently his lawyer did absolutely nothing.
>>223570276The moment a juror tries to play defense attorney and whips a knife out of his pocket to "prove a point" I'm quintuppling down on my guilty verdict, you're way too close to this and trying way too hard for me to not see an ulterior motive
>>223570301Deliberations are literally about examining the evidence. There are no rules for them. There are no lawyers or judges involved. The rules of a trial are only ever in place for the lawyers and are exclusively about how evidence is presented to the jury.If jury deliberations weren't a black box, literally every trial would be a mistrial.
>>223570336Sorry guy, you're being fucking weird doing extracurricular activity like shopping around for identical knives.
>>223570351>okay but its weeeeirrrdi accept your concession.
>>223570363>deleted scene where Fonda is working at his smithing forge to make an identical knife that he will later pass off as a knife he found at a bodega
>>223570379>bodegabrown.
>>223570398So I'm innocent of all wrongdoing is what you're trying to say
>>223570407you're guilty of being brown and trying to pass as a human being.
>>223569536The uncertainty is the entire drive of the film.
People annoyed at this movie are idiots who think the point of a trial is to punish the guilty.
>>223563152Legalism propaganda. Would there be anyone behind the movie with an interest in pushing legalism?
>>223567583>>223568935>>223569205>>223569250Interesting movie, I kinda like it.
>>223569432kek what are these two drinking, they have like 5% jewish genes between them
>>223570301He introduced outside evidence to influence the other jurors. That alone is grounds for a mistrial and arrest.
>>223564662Big Bad BeatleBorgs
>>223563152>and you really think she didnt know what she was doing by walking in that frat house?
>>223567288No they don't.>Shoots linsey clancy
>>223570832jurors cannot introduce evidence. Not because it isn't allowed, but because it isn't possible. introducing evidence is a process between the lawyers and judge to establish evidence in the court record. There is no court record in deliberations, therefore evidence can't be introduced.This befuddles the ESL.
>>223566394oy vey the goyim are becoming too intimately aware of our history of lies
>>223569165left, right, same result
>>223563152I don't feel like it was pro-minorities, to me the movie served to highlight the sheer retardation of the legal process. That the outcome of a case hinges on some random fucking morons you literally grab off the street.
>>223571602they aren't random. jury selection is a big part of trial law. ya know how recently prosecutors thought women with children wouldn't be sympathetic to a woman murdering her own children and the defense just had to cover their mouths and keep from laughing.
>>223571602Pictured: king moron who wants to be a judge real bad
>>223563152Perfect troll is perfectReally the baneposting of trolling. I am not kidding.
>>223563232Can I ask you something, does racism exist? Or has it ever existed?
>>223563364Seth, easy on the bonbons...
>>223563559>this is an english major in 2026
>>223564657>brought his own fucking knife as new evidence>as new evidenceIt wasn't though.
>>223572247It kind of is though. You're not really supposed to be doing jurying outside of the court, so he broke conduct when he decided to go on a shopping spree to find a new piece of counter evidence
>>223567216>My cousin actually is a lawyer and works for a big firm and his boss tols him they would never convict Jigsaw
>the old man lied, also he and the defense attorney are evil cartoons trying to convict a po little brownboy who dindunuffin!
>>223572382It's possible.
>>223567274Yeah there's no way he could have persuaded everyone to go not guilty with that flimsy shit Maybe one or twoIt would have ended up with a split vote ie a mistrial
>>223572480The ending feels pulled straight out of the directors asshole.>and then the biggest meanest most stubborn one breaks down and cries and changes his mind because he realizes at the 11th hour that hes forcing his strained relationship with his son into the case.
>>223569998>You ESLs always get hung up on the idea that you can't acquit someone without another suspectAnon never mentioned a need for another suspect Deciding the facts "did the accused commit the crime" is exactly the job of the jury
>>223563152That's right.
>>223569253>the old man can't walk.This has not been proved
>>223572552HES OLD AND HAS A CANE THEREFORE....HE DIDNT DO IT
>>223571143Oh he's a EFL, I can assure you.
>>223572311There is no "kind of". The switchblade he brought was not new evidence, anymore than a pair of dice which he could have brought to demonstrate the concept of probablities.
>>223572628This, it was simply to illustrate his claim that the knives were not unique The real issue was him making up fairy stories to discredit every witness. Some flimflam bullshit about "there's no way she was wearing her glasses" is NOT reasonable doubt
>>223564657Based
>>223572204Not him, but we don't care.
>>223569329SO THERE'S REASONABLE DOUBT, ADOLF
>>223569427>Captain Smith?I'm guessing he's referring to the captain of the Titanic.
>>223572670It is reasonable doubt
>>223569356>We saw him struggle to walk with no urgency>therefore, based off that, we can determine how he walks at all times. Dhuurrrrr. Im a scientist!
>>223563536>>223569960Pretty sure I watched a version of this that never showed the defendant's face?
>>223573293Yes that's exactly how it works. If someone struggles to walk with "no urgency," then they aren't going to be much faster with urgency.
>>223569960>emotionally manipulative and prejudices the audience for no reasonOh, you mean like the rest of the film. Only with a very good reason. To discredit jury trials and allow criminals to walk free and destroy our society. Oh good heavens, why who would want to do that? Oh yeah, the fucking commies who run hollywood and the media and now academia, the justice system, and political and social service bureaucracy that discriminates nonstop.
>>223573342Why would a witness have an urgency to walk to the witness box, you moron?
>>223569427The mass murderer yeah.
>>223573373You are retarded
>>223573392No ones trolled bruh.
>>223573373anon do you understand that currently "jury trials" are essentially a punishment for not accepting a plea deal? because they take time and resources?
>>223573178It was decidedly unreasonable
>>223573342You don't even know that how he walks is how he walked earlier that day? What if he slipped on ice or just had a surgery? We need to take old man walking speed in court to be the precise same walking speed from 6+ months ago in the comfort of his own home on a potentially good or bad day where he may have over or underestimated the true distance he walks from point X to point Y? Its asking way too much of the average person
>>223574360When you get awoken by a loud noise, you don't immediately grab your glasses, you look in the direction of the noise and go into fight or flight. you also don't sleep with your glasses on.reasonable doubt.
>>223574387It's reasonable doubtA reasonable person would doubt it
>>223563687You said we could throw out all the other evidence!
>>223574387people who are recently injured don't try to hide their injury. people with chronic conditions try to hide their conditions.reasonable doubt.
>>223574401That is an unreasonable chain of supposition, and contradicts the witness' clear testimony
>>223574415>>223574404>It's reasonableIt isnt reasonable, nor is it reasonable to introduce the train element. The jurors are now acting as defense attorneys
>>223574401Having been awoken by a deer at my bedroom window, I can 100% confirm I grabbed my glasses first thing and my gun second thing, as the latter is useless without the former
>>223574420she literally claims she was awoken in the night by the fight. then claims to have seen it through a passing train and two sets of windows.
>>223569350I strenuously object to this accusation.
>>223574436the "train element" was introduced by the witness testimony. watch the movie sometime.
>I guess there is reasonable doubt after all>I'm still voting guilty
>>223570245>crime exists>therefore the criminal justice system is completely infallible
Still voting guilty
She has little divots on her nose That means her glasses must be heavyThat means the lenses are thick Tat means she's very short sighted Why not long sighted? How do I know they're not reading glasses? Especially since she didn't have them today in court?Simple; I don't. But it's reasonable to assume.That word "reasonable" is all you need to acquit.
>>223574511Omg did you even watch the trial
>>223574522>IM REASONABLE
I think Henry Fonda did it
>>223574554Well he has the same knife
>>223574436>The jurors are now acting as defense attorneysThat is literally their job
>>223563152He was a confessed criminal himself
>>223566415Hollywood was infiltrated by communists. McCarthy was right. Watch "Hail Caesar."
>>223574477>if you vote not guilty, you'll get to go to the ball game >reasonable doubt
>>223574568Not as it is now. Now juries are just supposed to score the attorney presentationsand announce a winner like it's a boxing match. The system is fucked.
>>223574420The witness' "clear testimony" was that she woke up to the sounds of a fight, woke up, immediately looked through her window through the window of a passing el train, through the window on the opposite side of the train, and through a fourth window into an apartment where the apartment lights were momentarily on yet were somehow switched off a split second later as the train passed and that in spite of all this she somehow got a photo-clear glimpse of the murder.That's very questionable testimony.
>be defense attorney>client clearly fucking did it>can't in good conscience make a case for this obvious murderer>some Jew juror
>>223574626Considering both sides of a train will have windows in the same spot "through 2 windows" isnt THAT crazy
>>223574615It's the same as it ever was; once you go into deliberations it is absolutely your right to stand your ground and raise reasonable doubts. People are just spineless.
>>223574626Looking through a fast moving train isn't difficult. The windows all blur together
>>223574659Jurors decide what actually happened based only on the evidence shown in court.This whole movie is a fantasy and ironically copaganda.
>>223574655>"through 2 windows" isnt THAT crazyBut you admit it's a BIT crazy, yes?Then you must acquit
>>223563152propaganda of the juden, same with that other one from the 30s or 40s about that serial killer who goes around killing children, and you see him doing it. then at the end a lunch mob corners him, and his defense is "it is my nature to murder so I am blameless" in a suspiciously long monologue designed to make the viewer second guess their most basic moral instincts.and yes, typical tricks was involved as always in the making of it.
>>223574672NO ITS IMPOSSIBLE GOY! EVEN IF YOURE INTENTLY FOCUSSED ON A LOUD FIGHT THAT STARTLED YOU, ITS IMPOSSIBLE!
>>223574707>lunch mob
>>223574655That's assuming a straight level line between the two apartment windows. If there's even a few feet of elevation difference or shift to the left or right that's no longer the case and you've now got parallax to deal with. The window frames can now actively block a not-insignificant portion of each other and the apartment window beyond.
>>223574725Add it to the list
>>223574733And your argument assumes that everyone involved is old blind untrustworthy and hard of hearing....are you saying the witnesses lied under oath? Because that's a crime...
>>223574757It's possible
>>223574683>Jurors decide what actually happened based only on the evidence shown in court.Jurors can make a decision based on whatever internal logic they fucking want. If the answer came to you in a fucking dream and that's your logic, then you fucking do you.Now, if you outright TELL the court that that's what you're basing your decision on, or that you're deliberately disregarding the court's instructions in some other way, they have some legal avenues to remove you from the jury, but simply stating that you are not convinced by the prosecution's case (or the defense's case) is not cause for removal, regardless of what your internal reasoning might be.
>>223574757People can make mistakes. Sometimes innocently, honestly, but it happens.
>>223574845>your honor, juror 8 brought a knife in and started waving it around, saying it's proof the knife isnt unique in any way
>>223574845Yeah but that doesn't mean it's legal or what the system intends.
>>223563152a girl who really liked me but had a long term boyfriend at the time told me to watch this, so I did.not long after she moved away and wrote me a year or few later to say she was about to get married. think she had a big thing for me, pity I didn't know her earlier/for longer.
>>223563152>The old lady just wanted her 15 minutes of fameCompletely based and true. Let the kid go.
>>223574725>lynch time rowdies
>>223563152>This (kid!)'s life is muh hands, let's be really sure about this -- Mr Democracy
>>223574879Yes. Bringing in the knife is going too far and is a clear violation of court orders and the court would be within its legal bounds to dismiss Fonda if the other jurors chose to report him for it. It's my one nitpick with the movie, but I recognize that it's done for dramatic effect.All that being said, the existence of an identical knife IS reasonable doubt if the prosecution's case relied on the uniqueness of the knife being proof that it was the same knife the defendant had once owned. It doesn't prove it was not the same knife, it doesn't prove the kid didn't do it, but it does introduce a reasonable doubt of the prosecution's claim.>>223574928The system as outlined by the US Constitution intends for trial by jury to be a fourth line of protection of the rights of the individual against the State. Even if the State says you committed a crime and that your property, your freedom, or your life is forfeit, a jury of your peers can disagree and the State's ability to influence that deliberation is meant to be deliberately and exceptionally narrow. That can include finding you Not Guilty because of extenuating circumstances introduced by the Defense, or because they find the law you are being charged with to be an unjust law, etc.If you think we should revoke that protection, then at least recognize that you do so at your own peril.
>>223575074>it does introduce a reasonable doubt of the prosecution's claim.It introduces doubt. It's up to the jurors to decide if it's reasonable
>>223575074>Even if the State says you committed a crime and that your property, your freedom, or your life is forfeit, a jury of your peers can disagreeWhy would the state accuse a criminal falsely What would the state have to gain?
This film does not present an accurate depiction of how juries work, but if you ignore that, the MESSAGE of the film and the movie itself are both totally fine. You should not be quick to dispense this kind of justice - time must be taken to review all evidence carefully and, if there is reasonable doubt, acquit the person. That's foundational to the justice system. A movie about the lawyers arguing that would not be as interesting as 12 random dudes doing it, each having their own unique perspective.It was a different time. Prejudice absolutely covered all of society. Obviously we have gone too far in the opposite direction these days, but when the movie was written and directed they were very far in the other direction themselves and it was clear that men thinking more logically and reasonably like in the film was something to aspire to. Not to have the facts, in your mind, fit the presupposition that "of course the ethnic minority I hate did it!" As we can see in today's world, when the smelly foreigner or minority did it, it's very obvious even after scrutinizing the evidence. There would be no "well wait this knife isn't actually unique!" moments because we have video evidence, etc.
>>223575179The problem though is that the movie becomes a bit of an elaborate strawman where thanks to a cartoon kangaroo court where a defense attorney did nothing and a prosecution were retarded and the witnesses are all unreliable and the judge is taking a long nap throughout all of this that the story is allowed to exist
>>223575113>Why would the state accuse a criminal falsely>What would the state have to gain?Innocent answer? People make mistakes, especially when investigations are rushed or there is pressure to get a result.Less innocent answer? Governments around the world prosecute people every day using unjust laws or for shit they just plain didn't do for political, social, or cultural reasons.
>>223575179thanks grok
>>223574707Name of the movie?
>>223574522Farsighted people don’t need to wear their glasses as often as shortsighted people anon.
>>223575362Shortsightedness is also like 10 times more common.
Our society has become too stupid to even understand concepts like innocent until proven guilty and reasonable doubt and these threads prove it.Of course, most of you are probably from European countries or other hellholes where 'liberty' is just a byword for getting raped by your own government.
>>223575362But her not wearing them in court is strong evidence that she is longsighted and has no problem with distance vision
>>223575336M (1931)Some context that anon left out is that the lynch mob consists entirely of criminals who are only pissed off at the killer because the police's investigation has disrupted the goings on of the criminal underworld.The lynch mob doesn't corner him randomly, they stalk him, torture several office building workers in a building he hides in for information, and set up a drumhead court where they plan to execute him despite most of them being murderers themselves.
>>223575403What are you talking about you stupid faggot, the US justice system is a joke and fucks over first offenders more than it does people with multiple felonies
>>223575472That sounds kino potentially if it's merely meant to be an entertaining story not some moral lesson like that anon said.
>>223575530Everyone gets arrested by the police shortly after the speech and the movie shows him in a proper courtroom afterwards but doesn't reveal the verdict and one of the mothers of the victims does a fourth wall break and tells the audience to keep a better eye on their children.The rest of the movie is pretty good, but the ending is very much a 30s Euro film in contrast to what Hollywood was doing at the time.
>>223575512This, the us legal system is a nightmarish, hellish system, and you'd be better off being prosecuted as a white man in....uh....well, err
