12 angry men is so cool. i wish convincing people with reasonable evidence and logical arguments was real
12 angry men is so cool. i wish convincing people with reasonable evidence and logical arguments was real
12 angry men is so cool. i wish convincing people with reasonable evidence and logical arguments was real
>i wish convincing people with reasonable evidence and logical arguments was real
This doesn’t happen in the movie
> Dismantling the murder weapon as a damning piece of evidence (albeit in an illegal manner that would hang the jury)
> Disabling the key witness’ testimony
> Proving another witness was lying on the stand
> painting the last blowhard jurors as hostile
He did it. And he'll do it again.
You got that from a hit tweet, don't even lie. I saw the exact same tweet Black person. It was posted by a leftist woman, no less.
>YOU DONT UNDERSTAND, HES INNOCENT BECAUSE HES A POC BUT EVEN THOUGH HE DID IT ITS A GOOD THING ANYWAY.
You do know that the people behind this prehistoric woke slop are the progenitors of the modern left and it's institutional machine that says firey but mostly peaceful riots are protests and BLM slowed the spread
It's all been the long slow march of neomarxism
>i wish convincing people with reasonable evidence and logical arguments was real
>as long as what I'm trying to convince them is leftist propaganda and not evil stinky far right conspiracy theories
>yes men can be women and riots are peaceful protests!
Henry Fonda was full of shit. That kid committed murder and got away with it just because some commie homosexual had a bug up his ass.
The kid was guilty as shit and Fonda’s arguments to the contrary were extremely weak. Even if you believed everything he said there was more than enough to convict
>op doesn’t know he got subverted
Is it really ok to sneak a switchblade knife into a courthouse?
Back then, yes.
No, he'd get thrown out and replaced.
If any of the jurors told on him he would’ve been kicked off the jury and it might’ve been a mistrial
My childhood friend who moved to Denver said this was his favorite movie. Is it over?
>My childhood friend who moved to Denver said this was his favorite movie. Is it over?
Gay marriage is legal in Colorado
>moved to Denver
It's over
>t. trying to leave Denver
whats wrong with denver?
The worst offender was the glasses argument, that was so stupid
Movie ticket argument is even stupider
>I think it’s a bit suspicious that the kid remembered literally nothing about a movie he’d claimed to have seen hours ago
>OH YEAH? Well you can’t remember every single detail about a movie you saw 2 weeks ago, CHECKMATE
He probably watched some shit like Downsizing and erased it from his mind because of how moronic it was.
>me looking up from my phone after just watching this scene
>already forgot what they're on about
You children are different from kids back then.
Have you seen a 50’s talkie? They’re extremely bland and unmemorable. This one doesn’t count ofc.
youd be correct anon, except the kid saw madame web
>the kid can't possibly remember a single thing about a movie he saw two hours ago
>but guys, remember two hours ago during the testimony of this very long and boring trial, did you happen to notice two very small imprints from across the room on the nose of one of the witnesses? Well that means her entire testimony of seeing him kill his father is all bullshit
>He obviously did it!
>Yeah but what if he didn't?
>..But he did!
>OK, but what IF he didn't
>He did it it!
>And if he didn't?
wow great fricking movie
The defense could have brought up the knife's non-uniqueness at any point during the trial, and said nothing.
Yep this entire movie was bullshit. Henry Fonda's character was a complete psychopath who used manipulation and invented evidence out of thin air to convince the jurors to vote how he wanted instead of relying on the facts presented during the trial.
>demands the juror with glasses tell him what he did every night of the week until he can't remember, this "proves" that the kid had an excuse for not remembering the name of the movie he claimed to have seen two hours prior
>wandered through the kid's neighborhood and just so happened to buy the exact same knife that was used in the murder
>deliberately provoked Lee Cobb's character to alienate him from the other jurors
>claimed without evidence that the woman who witnessed the murder across the street wasn't wearing her glasses and completely disregarded the possibility that she was far sighted since it destroys his narrative
>assumed that the man downstairs who saw the kid run past his door after the murder lied about how long it took him to get across his apartment
>convinced the other jurors that the kid's dad was abusive and deserved to be murdered
>Henry Fonda's character was a complete psychopath who used manipulation and invented evidence out of thin air
Do zoomers really think debating to change the other persons mind is psychopathy
Bizarre watching people turn into the jurors themselves when they b***h about this movie.
Your job as a juror is to look at the evidence given during the trial, not make up your own.
Not him, but your post is wrong. It is to determine based off evidence given, and lack of as well. The evidence didn't seem right to Fonda's character, so he debated it more like he was supposed to do. There is a reason jurors are given time to go over evidence with each other to make a decision.
>so he debated it more like he was supposed to do
No, endless "what ifs" defeat the entire point of the trial.
No, you are just misinformed. One of the principles of the justice system is that both sides must be given the opportunity to examine evidence and arguments, scrutinize them, and counter them. It is a violation of this principle for the jury to introduce new "evidence" (conjecture is a better description in this case) because the prosecution will not even be able to evaluate and respond to it. You can easily picture how grossly unfair this would seem to you if, in an inverse situation, the juror's speculation were favourable to the prosecution and someone ended up jailed for decades or executed based on the imaginings of jurors whose daydreams were never cross-examined. But this rule must work both ways.
So if you're a juror and happen to be, say, a physicist, and your specialized knowledge lets you know something one side claimed (say, forensic results) is bullshit, you can't bring that up in the jury room?
are you genuinely moronic?
>Entire thread is about healthy debate
>comes in with "UR moronic" as his argument
You are moronic
These posts aged poorly
>To be judged by a jury of your peers
>NO NOT LIKE THAT THEY HAVE TO THINK THIS WAY FRICK FRICK FRICK
>both sides must be given the opportunity to examine evidence and arguments, scrutinize them, and counter them.
Yeah, that's what happens before the jury gets locked into a room to discuss exactly that. if the prosecution failed to convince the jury, that's on the lawyer, not the jury. If the jury isnt considering your evidence how you anticipated they would then, maybe you just did a shitty job at - whats the phrase - 'convincing the jury'? You're a fricking moron tbh and have no business piping up about law. Go finish up highschool.
Debating about the import of the evidence is fine. Disputing the evidence based on speculation you made up and physically bringing in outside evidence is not.
>Disputing the evidence based on speculation you made up
that is literally reasonable doubt anon. the prosecutions job is to remove any room for speculation, whereas the defence's job is to open it up
if you can reasonably speculate as to alternative explanations, thats reasonable doubt and you should conclude not guilty
Lol. How's your first year of liberal arts anon? Come back when you're at least 1L this just is embarassing to read.
i dont think you understand the movie or the judicial system, anon
Public defenders are overworked and underpaid
This is some moronic ESL shit, probably because the movie was written by israelites whose first language is yiddish.
No one ever claimed the knife was one of a kind original never to be replicated artifact too complicated and ornate that a human can't possibly such an alien device.
The knife was unique in the sense that it's identifiable. If someone gets shot with a glock and then people go to you and ask where your glock went, and you lost it, that's suspicious as frick. That doesn't mean there is one single glock in the entire world and that I can go into a court room and whip out a glock I bought just for the trial to prove he killer couldn't do it.
This is not something the defense would argue at all because the evidence was so overwhelming that they're there just because they have to be there.
the point is when the prosecution made a provably false claim. like instead of just calling the gun a glock, they just described it, and claimed it was custom made, and one of the jurors was /k/gay, and told the rest "that's just a fricking glock, here's a picture of mine"
To be fair, if I was part of a jury whose verdict condems a man to death I'd want to be 100 percent sure that he actually did the crime.
I am potentially being part of killing a man here.
moronic Biden voters like you let Casey Anthony and OJ walk
No OJ walked because that fricking idiot detective decided to plant unnecessary evidence when all the proof that he did the murder was there. Don't say the glove bullshit was the only reason OJ walked.
What evidence did they plant?
Idk what that anon is talking about. What I remember is just that someone fricked up preserving the DNA samples and used plastic instead of paper bags, so the defense was trying to argue that the police corrupted the DNA to prove OJ's guilt. The jury were also moronic and just never understood how DNA shit worked at the time.
The main point about the OJ trial is the prosecution fricked up early, and made the police untrustworthy, which cochran kept bringing up, demolishing the case.
>trying to make sense with a bunch of children.
It’s a bit funny how much this film triggers pole posters and how bad faith their criticisms are. Perfect example of arguing via a predetermined agenda.
Glitzy propaganda of the worst kind but talking about it with anything but praise is bound to get tens of "totally disinterested" redditorgays seething in your vicinity for the next few hours.
Written by a israeli man and directed by another israeli man.
It's the inspiration for Sotomayor the activist supreme judge to go into law.
>if you lie and make shit up, criminals go free, and that's ok
My country doesn't have a jury system. It makes court cases extremely boring and detailed.
mine has just introduced jury-less trials on a preliminary basis for certain cases. curious to see how it plays out
We live in a world of witch hunts. Not reason based argumentation
>i wish convincing people with reasonable evidence and logical arguments was real
oy vey stop being antisemitic
What's the point of the jury system? Isn't it just the same as having a rigged/bias judge just with more people?
You're not supposed to take the movie literally. It's just demonstrating reasonable doubt not how a real jury trial works.