>BUT ISN'T IT POSSIBLE THAT SOMEBODY BROKE INTO THE APARTMENT RIGHT AFTER THE SON ARGUED WITH THE FATHER HE HATED AND THREATENED TO KILL AND THEN STABBED THE FATHER TO DEATH FOR SOME REASON WITH THE EXACT SAME KNIFE THE SON HAD, THEN RAN OUT OF THE BUILDING WITHOUT ANYBODY NOTICING HIM, YOU RACIST CHUD?
This movie mindbroke a generation of Americans into letting murderers off the hook.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
As a 22 year old zoomer, this was pure kino and no one can change my mind.
It's pure kino the first time you watch it. Then you start noticing how obviously guilty he is.
Even the first time I watched it I was thinking "man some of these arguments Fonda is making are really stretches"
theyre reasonable
nah
The movie and story is flawed but its really about showcasing talented actors and telling a story about changing minds and avoiding prejudice. The biggest flaw of course is the introduction of the knife which is a violation of the rules of evidence and would have led to a mistrial.
idk about that, if something blatantly contradicts a statement its not like you can actually disregard it.
henry fondas juror introduced the identical knife to the jury and he said it was easily available. But was that right ? Maybe he just got lucky finding the same knife for sale. Maybe he has a reason to mislead the jury about how commonly available the knife was. This is why such evidence is supposed to be examined by the court before the jury can consider it.
nah, the jury can consider anything at any time ever. he didnt even need to produce such a knockoff knife
>you could buy this knife anywhere
and then maybe they believe him or maybe they don't. the laws of evidence are to keep the lawyers fighting fair not the jury.
Wrong, the jurors are only allowed to consider testimony and evidence entered as exhibits. They can doubt the validity of it, but they can't consider evidence not presented. Those are the jury instructions in pretty much every single court case.
>allowed
no. jury instructions are a formality, the jury system is a check against the law itself.
A jury can straight up acknowledge he did it and still vote Not Guilty anyway.
The biggest problem with the movie is how obviously fricking guilty the kid is. Just change a couple things and that could've been solved
>only one eyewitness who had a clearly stated motive to lie
>the kid had a movie ticket but he possibly could've killed the dad before going to the movie. There was one other person in the audience at the movie who thinks she MIGHT have seen him there
>the dad was stabbed with a kitchen knife instead of an unusual switchblade
Disregarding the issue of the rules of evidence and jurors doing their own investigations, the Defendant is still dead guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
It's not a reasonable doubt to assume an incredibly unlikely scenario to explain the Defendant's knife being the murder weapon on top of ignoring two eyewitnesses.
>defendant's knife
alleged
>eyewitnesses
voir dire'd
completely reasonable course of action.
The movie argument is what really got me the first time.
>Oh, you can't remember the all the actors in a movie you watched a week ago, that's the same thing as not remembering what movie you JUST WATCHED
>Then you start noticing how obviously guilty he is.
Irrelevant, that's the whole point. He might be guilty, probably is, but it doesn't matter
This. My second watch, when all the thrills are gone, you realize that he's guilty.
One of the jurors literally tells Fonda this in the bathroom after he convinced them that they need to argue the case.
>Suppose you convince us all that he's innocent when he's really guilty
Or something like that. This one line is what makes this movie a masterpiece. The first time you watch it most people are convinced that the Defendant is not guilty or at least that there is reasonable doubt as to his guilt. But there isn't reasonable doubt. He's guilty.
yeah and then its even more interesting and more kino because of that
and it becomes even more kino
The movie only works if you lack even the most basic critical thinking capabilities
That shouldn't hamper your kinographic experience if you're not a total smoothbrain
It's a great movie if you take it as a meta commentary where Fonda represents a larger force at work on society (the jury).
Yeah, the true genius of the film is how it shows how a small elite can completely subvert a homogenous society, by many different strategies depending on the juror, like using social pressure, shame, appeals to intellect etc.
the first time I watched it all I could think was how obviously guilty he was and that it was a shit movie, haven't watched it since and never will, simple as
Lol I voted for Obama when I was 22 and now I hate Black folk and israelites more than Hitler did. You don't think it will happen to you but just wait, even Hitler was like you when he was young
It was kino when I as 15 and cringe propaganda with prototype vibes for CSI when I was 25.
Its been a while since I seen it but I'm pretty sure the kid says he was at the movies, its the neighbors who say they saw him but it could just be someone who looked and sounded like him.
What movie?
12 angry men
12 seething chuds
The kid doesn’t remember
12 sussy bakas
A Dozen Irate Gentlemen
A Baker's Dozen of Upset Dudes Minus One
The Magnificent 7
twelve sassy women of color
your honr i submit for evidence my dick
13th Warrior I believe
oceans 12 upsetti spaghettis
the kid didn't even remember which movie he saw. For me, that was more than enough to throw out that alibi.
yeah but not having an alibi doesnt change anything
Maybe he went to the movies a lot and the flick he saw that day was not very memorable?
At that time, many theaters would basically play movies on a loop without set showtimes, and it was common for people to just walk in on the middle of a movie. It's very possible for someone to have walked into a movie and not known what it was called.
Then he should have been able to describe the movie he saw.
what did you have for breakfast yesterday?
I ate your moms pussy
The plot twist is that Juror 8(Fonda) was the real killer.
better to let the guilty go free than to punish the innocent, that is the (supposed) basis of the US justice system.
not completely out of the question now that I think about it.
>better to let the guilty go free than to punish the innocent
as the innocent, it's better than the alternative
>better to let the guilty go free than to punish the innocent, that is the (supposed) basis of the US justice system.
But the problem is that there isn't reasonable doubt in this movie. It plays on the viewer's emotions and many of the "not guilty" arguments are outright absurd (like the old guy with perfect vision who can see tiny indentations in a woman's face from across the courtroom).
This movie's message is that you shouldn't charge anyone with murder if you don't catch them literally standing over the victim with blood on their hands. Most murder cases aren't like that. You have to piece things together and come to the most likely conclusion. In this movie they concoct a "what if" story and then let the kid go based on that. If that were the standard for all murder cases, there'd be many more killers walking the streets.
>This movie's message is that you shouldn't charge anyone with murder
that's not what the movie is about
the message is you come at the king you best not miss
contrarians on Cinemaphile insist there's no room for reasonable doubt not because that's true, but because suggesting there is goes against their worldview that the film is merely propaganda made to illicit tolerance of brown people. Posts like
underline the point; if the defendant wasn't brown I wouldn't see this same shitty thread every week and the movie would be considered kino.
The biggest failing of the movie was showing the defendant. Doing so makes the plot more about a specific bias (racial) than it does about bias in general and justice. Further, if the audience never saw the defendant they would view the movie from their perspective, and would empathize with the defendant as intended
friedkin's version does slightly better but through dirty diversification
If the defendant wasn't brown the movie would never have been written. This is the start of the insanity that led to Matt Petgrave being given a standing ovation.
If the defendant wasn't brown it would be a normal courtroom drama with the same cultural significance as Witness for the Prosecution. It's the top of modern goys kino list because they get to watch eleven angry chuds get put in their place by a bleeding heart liberal. You literally cannot enjoy the movie without the presupposition that the defendant is on trial because of whitey wanting a scapegoat. Therefore it is relevant to examine the way in which the 'reasonable doubt' angle is beaten to death in the movie and ultilmately leaves the audience with a zero sum story.
A remake would have to have the races reversed to be compelling in any sense
revealing the defendant's race and the audience responding to the movie based on the defendant character's race were not mistakes, they were the purpose of the movie.
yeah but it's still fricking dumb. when you read the original play in class it's just "oh they're trying to decide if this guy is innocent or guilty" not "oh they're trying to decide if this MINORITY is innocent or guilty". It changes the whole thing to it going from them examining the evidence (or lack thereof) instead of it being some old racist angry dudes who hates black. The Russian version does the same thing when its a bunch of old Russian dudes and the suspect is some kind of Caucasian/Kavkaz (the mountains) Chechen or some shit.
One of the juror literally consider him guilty just because he's black
>he's black
he was clearly supposed to be hispanic or maybe italian or something they dont specify his race he definitely was not black. Blacks moving to northern cities like NY and Chicago and causing crime to skyrocket to unprecedented levels did not happen until the 60s civil rights era.
A lot of people miss how fricked up some of the jurors were from the onset. One of them didn't care whatsoever and just wanted to get to some baseball game, another one was projecting his own issues with his son on the little shit, another one immediately assumed guilt because of where the boy lived and what race he was and some of them just weren't very bright and went with the flow
remember when taylor swift was called for jury duty and she showed up ? Well in reality people with good jobs usually do not.
It's been awhile but I though he was a wop in the original. People forget white used to be just Anglo, Scot, and some Germans.
>better to let the guilty go free than to punish the innocent, that is the (supposed) basis of the US justice system.
In reality it is better to fricking destroy criminals and all their associates like what El Salvador did to MS13
The "point" of the movie is drama and entertainment and intrigue; what starts as a clear cut case that everyone says is guilty one dude ends up beginning to convince a few people, then everyone, that the case is not so clear cut. The moral is hamfisted and if you nitpick, sure, you can come to the conclusion that you did, but don't act like the creators are trying to say that you should find people innocent for ridiculous purposes or reasons.
Just like in action movies how the MC survives shit no human ever would, in this film you're expected to believe that it makes sense that the kid is found innocent after all the jury discussions, just for the sake of drama and entertainment. It's like a Sherlock Holmes story. It's called suspending your disbelief. What happens in the movie, the jurors' doubts and arguments and logic, is larger than life - it's not meant to be perfection that you can't take apart. That's not the point.
You're hating on the movie for contrarian purposes. Like some rube who hates on The Patriot or Braveheart because they aren't 100% historically accurate, or the Lord of the Rings (PJ films) because they don't 100% represent the source material. What those things are instead makes up for what they lose in translation. In the case of 12 Angry Men, you needed a very tight case so you could slowly "unravel" it, but then in real life if you had such a tight case you couldn't really do that as there would be no reasonable doubt, so for movie's sake they uncover things that straddle the line between reasonable and unreasonable doubt.
The point of the film is we shouldn’t be hating communists just let them in they’ll do no harm to society
>this movie's message is that you shouldn't charge anyone with murder if you don't catch them literally standing over the victim with blood on their hands
sure anon, whatever you say
moron ''logic''
All guilty should be held responsible.
All who are innocent should be let go. The standard shouldn't be ''let's let guilty people go.'' The standard should be striving for perfection. Obviously guilty people like the one in the movie shouldn't be let go because of some abstract idea about how some innocent people go to jail so frick logic and let this guilty guy free.
When you are dealing with people's lives you should get it as close to perfect as possible. Someone should go to jail because you can prove they did it, someone should go free if you can't prove they didn't do it. That's what makes sense, instead you have morons like this go ''heh, we need to actually let 100 murderers go because I value 1 hypothetical innocent.'' Like we need to hit a quota and start releasing killers because of one dumb quote.
You're genuinely autistic
Yeah, let the guilty free so they can kill the innocent instead
Honestly makes more sense than assuming some mystery murderer killed the father for no real reason with the same weapon the son owned on the exact night they had a major fight.
This is my assertion as well. He went out of his way to find the kid innocent not only because he was but because he felt bad that the kid would be seen as guilty of what he did. It's why he had the weapon, was so motivated, was so knowledgeable and even so easy to trust. He KNEW the kid didn't do it. That was what made him so convincing.
This
how the frick would the killer be randomly selected as a juror?
he steals the identity of a real juror
You're racist.
So are you.
The entire Fonda family should be publicly executed for subversion and treason
I wholeheartedly agree.
Kissinger is a bigger evil than Hanoi Jane. The divide + conquer shit is why we can't stop the forever warmongers.
>Kissinger is a bigger evil than Hanoi Jane.
That doesn't mean you should ignore her evils
What Kissinger did wound up benefiting the white race, so he's alright.
Not Bridget though
Pretty much.
Similar thing happened with Fritz Lang's M, where a pedophilic child murderer gets off the hook because he didn't know what the was doing consciously. Isn't that worse? Just put these dysgenic freaks into a woodchipper.
The real solution to the crime in 12 Angry Men is just mass deportation.
This movie is the perfect IQ test. Anyone who thinks there’s reasonable doubt is moronic and is suited only for menial labor
I think there isn't a place for resonable doubt in this case and I am a moron suited only for menial labor though
>but what if the woman who claims she saw him wasn't wearing her glasses at the time and was just making it up for no reason
>woman
>making things up for attention
I mean...
you cant identify shit through the windows of a passing train
>Yes I identified him while being blind as frick with no glasses on looking through the tiny pin prinks of light of the windows of a fast moving train
That woman shouldn't even have been a witness kek
>SUPPOSIN' THEY WEREN'T GAS CHAMBERS? SUPPOSIN' THEY WERE JUST AN UNDERGROUND MORGUE AND A AIR RAID SHELTER! ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT IT'S JUST POSSIBLE!
>SIX MILLION???!!
>ITS IMPOSSIBLE! HE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME!! HE ONLY HAD A LIMITED NUMBER OF OVENS AND THE ALLIES WERE BOMBING HIS SUPPLY LINES!!
>I'm not saying he's a good guy, but it wasn't six millions and you can take that to the bank.
But that's actually what they were. The meme only works if you dismiss a simple logical answer for an outlandish just-so story.
So you'd say
>showers? Air raid shelters? What if it were a conspiracy transmitted purely through context and hidden codes we have but can't divulge even after the war for the trial. A conspiracy to use a common pesticide used in America for Mexicans crossing the border except now it doesn't stain gas chambers, just the delousing chamber.
cope harder troony
>le heckin' ebil nazis were super efficient and cunning!
>that's why they killed people in the most inefficient way possible, such as suffocation, holocoaster, bears and eagles, jerk off machines!
nazis are always described as inhumanly efficient, but then are also super sadistic and torturous to trump up their charges.
yes but the friedkin version with gandolfini and fricking tony danza is also very good. i prefer grumpy old jack lemmon to fonda. hume cronyn got more kino in him than all the other jurors combined.
>WITHOUT ANYBODY NOTICING HIM
He was noticed by a senile old man and a blind woman, debunked.
I'M JUST SAYING IT'S POSSIBLE THAT AN ALIEN SHAPESHIFTER TOOK HIS FORM AND KILLED THAT PERSON
they made the right choice, only idiots think otherwise
They made the wrong choice. The only right choice was to hang the jury.
The prosecutor was a frick up that brought a flimsy ass case to trial. The judge was a moron that couldnt keep a jury from doing wildly innapropriate shit in deliberation. You shouldnt send an innocent man to prison but neither should you let a murderer go free.
The cops and the legal system fricked up and the citizens should righfully say do your fricking jobs and dont expect us to let you wash your hands of your incompetence.
The idea that the prosecution had a “flimsy” case is just wrong. Most defendants are convicted with a lot less.
THESE MEN ARE SO ANGRY
Was it clickbait?
they literally proved the kid was innocent. did you even watch the movie?
the jury's duty is not to prove one way or another. it's invalid
proofs only exist in math, anon
All they could do was to show that there is a possibility (albeit small) that the evidences could be wrong.
No they didn't, they just proved that there was reasonable doubt.
not guilty does not mean innocent
They absolutely did not.
>"But couldn't the multiple witnesses be wrong? And couldn't the kid have just forgot the movie he just watched because, well, because okay!"
All they proved was that the jury can be gaslight by a libtard.
Shut the frick up, hippie.
The only argument he had that I didn't like was the memory one. The kid wasn't able to tell police officers which movies he had seen during questioning that occurred very soon after he went to see them, and the juror used movies another juror had seen a week or so ago for his example.
>the juror used movies another juror had seen a week or so ago for his example
Not only that, he actually remembered the movie and only got one word wrong in the title. But everyone acts like it was such a slam dunk point that justifies not knowing the name or plot of a movie you just watched an hour earlier.
The movie is very well acted and is entertaining to watch, but holy shit the subversiveness of the plot.
He was guilty.
Group dynamics and the thrill of feeling like they were uncovering a great mystery and preventing an injustice swept the jurors along to reach the most illogical conclusions.
>Ignore two eye witnesses for b.s. they made up. One saw him literally plunge the knife into his father. The other saw him flee the scene. No evidence at all that they coordinated their stories, so they would have both had to make up the same lie.
>Ignore the fact that despite the fact an exact copy of that knife is sold, the kid just happened to lose his distinctive knife at the same time his father is murdered by the same type of knife.
>You can't remember every detail of every movie you ever saw, therefore it's reasonable that the defendant literally couldn't remember a single thing about the movie he saw, had no ticket receipt, and no one at the theater could remember him being there.
He was guilty.
they went into deliberation with illogical conclusions in hand and THAT is what was exposed. they could have said
>frick you i was stand by my convictions
and that would be that but it was their personal integrity that was being tested not facts of the case.
>was
*will
No. Every single juror except #8 is completely convinced beyond a reasonable doubt because the Prosecution made a strong case.
The PA put on an eyewitness to the murder that identified the Defendant. Then they discounted her because they assumed without evidence that.
(1) she needs glasses for near-sightedness, based solely on a juror seeing indents on her nose. However even if there were indents, they could have been for far-sightedness. Also, even if she does need glasses to see distance, they assume that she didn't just sleep with her glasses right next to her, and that she didn't have time to put them on to see the murderer. Regardless she does identifies the Defendant as the murderer and correctly described the stabbing, so clearly she's not making it all up.
(2) the elderly neighbor identifies being woken up by the scream, running outside and seeing the Defendant fleeing the scene of the crime. He says that he ran right past him, and is absolutely sure. This is the most egregious leap of their logic. They make a ton of assumptions to say he couldn't have possibly gotten to his door in time. (Maybe he ran faster than they think or maybe the Defendant took longer to flee the scene than they assumed). And so then they assume the old man literally made it all up, because he is an old man that wants to feel important. (Ironically the exact same argument could be made about the old juror who suggests this theory). No explanation how both the Old neighbor and the woman across the street both make up the same lie for no reason other than to frame an innocent boy.
I won't bother going over the rest of the evidence, which they casually ignore, because of you're willing to completely ignore both of these eyewitnesses, based on wild speculation which was never brought up at the trial or in closing arguments, then what's the point?
>convinced beyond a reasonable doubt
the key word there is reason which they are not doing before the events of the plot. they simply took everything for granted and came up with an obvious but acceptable verdict. through actual critical thinking they all come up with reasoned doubts which is the endgame.
There were no reasonablr doubts. The movie is a black comedy railing against the justice system by shiwing a jury of otherwise reasonable men being railroaded by one schizos headcanon just because of his force of personality. He even does it by just ignoring the whole process of jury deliberation.
You can completely throw the eyewitness evidence out and there's still more than enough evidence to convict him
>my dad got stabbed with a rare switchblade the same night that I claim my identical switchblade went missing? What a coinkydink!
>there's no evidence that anyone besides me had the motive, means and opportunity to kill him?! Uh oh! This is starting to look bad!
>I claimed that I was at a movie but couldn't produce a ticket or any alibi witnesses and couldn't remember a single detail about the movie when I was questioned that very night?!? Circumstantial!
circumstantial evidence basically isn't enough to convict someone, no DA would bring that to trial unless they had shit like racism backing up their play
>circumstantial evidence basically isn't enough to convict someone
This is literally wrong. There isn't even a gray area here, what you said is just incorrect.
>it's possible someone else did it. i rest my case.
and then he goes home
and then he goes to the chair*
You are literally moronic if you think a defendant can just say "NUH UH" and go home if there's no physical evidence. MOST criminal convictions are supported by only circumstantial evidence.
most plea deals are supported by circumstantial evidence and avoid a trial completely. nobody goes to trial with even a strong circumstantial case.
Again, simply not true.
Yes it is mostly my brother works high up in federal defense
Most court cases are dropped and the defendant set free before they ever go to trial simply because prosecutors don't have enough time to deal with as many cases as they're given.
>MOST criminal convictions are supported by only circumstantial evidence
And they're wrong
CSI and its consequences have been a disaster for the American legal system
I was on jury duty once and they were trying to convinct a guy for robbing a hooker. The only evidence they had was that the hooker said he did it. That was literally it. And most of the other people in the jury were initially ready to send him away because he "looked" guilty.
You people are morons.
>And most of the other people in the jury were initially ready to send him away because he "looked" guilty.
Completely valid reason to convict someone, unironically. Part of the reason the jury is in the courtroom is so they can observe the defendant's demeanor and body language. If they believed the hooker's testimony and he looked guilty, that's more than enough to send him away.
>Completely valid reason to convict someone, unironically.
You're a Black person
but then thinking he looked innocent is also a completely valid reason to convict someone. jury is above the law.
you're speaking to Darryl Brooks from his cell
They once arrested and gave a guy like 30 years for rape off of one victim ID and then it turned out a guy that looked just like him lived right down the street lol
No DNA no other evidence and he lost like 17 years of his life.
This can and does happen to people like you every day.
>like me
no i'm white
...so white privilege really does exist?
The privilege of being less prone to committing crime.
People get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the fricking time? The point of it is it is only evidence of guilt in the context of the murder so one or two things can be excused as coincidence but if you have 10+ different pieces of circumstantial evidence that’s a huge fricking coincidence and enough to convince a reasonable person.
>>my dad got stabbed with a rare switchblade the same night that I claim my identical switchblade went missing? What a coinkydink!
wasn't rare
>there's no evidence that anyone besides me had the motive
Nobody looked for that evidence
>I claimed that I was at a movie but couldn't produce a ticket or any alibi witnesses and couldn't remember a single detail about the movie when I was questioned that very night?!? Circumstantial!
Nobody keeps ticket stubs
>wasn't rare
Yes it was. All Fonda proved is that there was one other knife like it in the world.
>Nobody looked for that evidence
Jury decides the case based on the evidence before it. The fact that there is no other plausible suspect is a point against the kid unless you think a knife just flew into the dad's chest.
>Nobody keeps ticket stubs
>just ignores everything else wrong with his nonexistent alibi
>Yes it was. All Fonda proved is that there was one other knife like it in the world.
You can't into logic lmao, didn't read the rest of your shitpost
IAYC
gfsdffsdfdsgfg
>decides case based on evidence
lol no, jury doesnt have to do shit. flipping a coin is completely valid.
>t. never seen a judge read jury instructions at the start of deliberation
the judge's instructions do not apply to the jury anon. the only power the judge has at that point is to declare mistrial he can't influence the verdict in any way shape or form. it's blatantly dishonest and unethical to give contrary jury instructions, too.
keeps ticket stubs
Everybody puts the ticket stub in their pocket and forgets about it. No one intentionally throws it away while they're at the movie in case they need it to prove they bought a ticket. Everyone just throws it away the next day when they find it in their pocket. He should have had the stub in his pocket.
>wasn't rare
That doesn't matter. Even if it is the most popular single model of switchblade in the world (which it obviously isn't) then it's still an astronomical coincidence for the real murderer to murder the Defendant's father with an exact copy of the Defendant's switchblade, which the Defendant also just coincidentally happens to have misplaced.
That alone is enough to convict, because it's not a reasonable doubt, but a fanciful and wild speculation.
When you add two eyewitnesses, the motive, the means, and opportunity to enter the apartment without breaking in which any other intruder would have had to do, and the complete lack of alibi, it is way way way beyond a reasonable to doubt all that evidence.
>Ticket stubs
See
I believe there was plenty of reasonable doubt but there's some STRETCHES too, like
>based solely on a juror seeing indents on her nose
Additional thing about how ridiculous this is, is that he asks directly like "did you notice those indentations on her nose". A leading question if it was in court, as in
>"what color car was it?"
"Uhh"
>vs
>"now... was that a red car?"
"Y-yeah I believe it was. Yes!"
>Group dynamics and the thrill of feeling like they were uncovering a great mystery and preventing an injustice swept the jurors along to reach the most illogical conclusions.
along with the added virtue of giving a non-white defendant more than reasonable doubt to avoid 'racism'.
>Oh yeah do you remember the movie you watched 6 months ago?
>yeah it was called the murderer of Santiburg!
>uhmm acktually it's called the KILLER of Santiburg!
>do you remember the lead actor of the movie?
>Yeah it was the famous Stan dude
>y-yeah ok... but what about the B-list actress that was in one scene, what was her name?
>I...I don't know
>GOTCHA!!! That means it's perfectly reasonable that this kid doesn't remember a SINGLE thing about a movie he just watched 5min ago
This movie was pure dishonest
>But it's possible that the murderer happened by chance to own the exact same type of knife as the son which the son claims to have lost earlier that same day
>but not probable
>*main character never responds or attempts to rebut the fact that the explanation that the son is lying and killed the father that he hated with his knife is much more likely than the possibility that the son just so happens to lose his knife the exact same day that an unknown stranger happens to murder his father with the same kind of knife*
braindead libslop for bleading heart liberals
>every person that watches 12 angry men:
Holy shit that was good.
>every chud that watches 12 angry men:
WTF THEY SHOULDA KILLED THE Black person
>The kid was ambiguously Italian or Cuban/Puerto Rican
every woke troonyphile watches 12 angry men
>OMG why are they all men ? where are the people of color and trans queers.
>unprompted troonyposting
(You)
I only noticed the arguments were bad the on my second viewing. I might have been swept along with the rest of the jury if it had been me. That's what makes it a good movie.
it was dumb as frick on the first watch you midwitted simp
Sorry that you're a joyless homosexual
this kind of thing stopped being a "witty" retort sometime around 2004. now it just looks like you're spiteful and emotionally incontinent and don't have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion.
oh frick its the wit police
?si=A5IenvFyjkqNi26J
the kid was unambiguosly a stand-in for a israelite
leo frank more specifically
this whole movie is just israelites taking the piss out of the "justice" system by laughing at how easy they get away with their crimes
The film works very well as a drama but if you look at the evidence objectively it's blatantly obvious the kid did it.
the verdict was never a major focus. the main point of the film is show how the public jury system is moronic.
>SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
What the frick was the audio engineer thinking?
>hmm maybe it was an alien clone that killed the guy instead?
>that's enough reasonable doubt, he's innocent!
The point of the movie is that if there's room for doubt then there's the possibility that you'd be sending an innocent person to prison for the rest of their life.
Which most agree is worse than locking up a criminal.
But you're a buzzword spouting homosexual so it doesn't matter.
There's room for doubt in nearly every murder case unless the killer is caught in the act.
>There's room for doubt
Why do morons always forget that the doubt needs to be "reasonable"?
That's why they don't convice if there's only circumstantial evidence. Only direct evidence.
Learn the difference.
*convict
they can convict with only circumstantial evidence however if there's like a shit ton and they all draw the same conclusion
Lazy cops will just omit the circumstantial evidence that doesn't point to the same conclusion as the majority.
Incredible how every single thread about this movie just turns into 12 Angry Anons: The Thread.
Anyway Sidney Lumet is a great director and everyone should watch more of his filmography, I highly recommend Fail-Safe
everyone either misses the whole point of why the film was made, or are just trolling. business as usual.
>That guy is old but is a solid eye witness?
>he's lying because.... HE'S OLD AND WANT ATTENTION!
Using this logic can't you just release every single murderer because everyone might lie for attention?
no because the jury decides if he's a good witness or not, if the jury convicts that's the end.
A jury shouldn't speculate about things that was not said in court. If the witness was unreliable the DA should have pointed it out and argued for it.
>a jury shouldn't
a jury does whatever it fricking wants. if they got selected they are boss of the courtroom. judges can't order them to do a fricking thing. LITERALLY above the law.
>anons finds out witness testimonies aren't hard evidence
It was all that was needed to put Derek Chauvin away for 20 years
that was photographic evidence + autopsy results that ruled that the knee was the cause of death. do you have to try to be this moronic or does it just come naturally?
Actually that isn't true. During the actual trial, the defense showed bodycam footage of the event to counter the viral cell phone footage, and the prosecutors begrudgingly agreed that Chauvin's knee wasn't on George Floyd's neck, but his upper back. They began arguing that Chauvin was still responsible for his death because he kept Floyd's head too close to the exhaust pipe of the car (where Floyd placed himself after kicking his way out of the police car), but it was clear that this was a weak argument and the jurors were still basing their decision on initial false impressions of the event from the original viral video.
Plus, the autopsy found no signs of bruising on the neck and the one who did the autopsy stated that he included the police interaction as a cause of death based on the video evidence, not on any physical evidence
The jurors already knew the verdict they had to return the moment they got their summons. There was no way the system would let him go free and if he did the Black folk would have lynched him, the media would celebrate it, the democrats would celebrate it, and the Republicans would throw their hands up in the air and say "gosh imagine if the races were reversed" and then vote for whatever police reform bill was placed in front of them
People forget too quickley that there was a lynch mob gathered outside of the court house chanting so loudly that the jurors inside the building cpuld hear them, and they were headed by a black politician who told cameras that they were demanding a guilty verdict and were prepared to raise hell if they didn't get it, regardless of the evidence presented. The national guard was called in for protection in case he was declared innocent. That isn't how the justice system is meant to work.
Jews dont care about reality only their narrative and they have such a tight grip on the media that they can get a large portion of the population to believe anything at all
also remember that at least one juror was shown to have lied on his jury vetting form and was a politically biased active member of BLM with a very easy to find pro BLM social media presence. And that juror was not removed. nothing was done about it. request for a change of venue was denied without a thought. the medical examiner's report listed no fatal neck injuries and triple the lethal level of metabolised fentanyl in his system. Utter railroading. fentanyl Floyd died of a self inflicted overdose after swallowing all of his illegal fentanyl when he was approached by the police who were investigating a report from the Cup Foods clerk who told them that he passed counterfeit money and was behaving in an erratic manner characteristic of someone on drugs. He swallowed the fentanyl so the police could not seize it as evidence.
i didnt follow any of that bullshit but they only got him on like 3rd degree murder. thats like somebody died while you were breathing nearby wrongful death style.
no that was autopsy results that ruled that the cause of death was suffocation due to the compression of his neck
chauvin was going down the moment it was discovered it was his knee that killed him, witness testimony had barely anything to do with it
>no that was autopsy results that ruled that the cause of death was suffocation due to the compression of his neck
That is not what the autopsy concluded. Why are you lying?
>had presence of drugs in bloodstream but every single autopsy and the court established that cause of death was lack of oxygen from the kneeling on the back/kneck
There was one official autopsy and it said he died because his heart stopped. It did not even mention asphyxiation.
Please never post again.
>official autopsy points to hypertension, neck compression and lack of oxygen including damage on the heart and brain from lack of oxygen
>but he had some drugs from weeks ago so it's that
VAX'D????
I see that you keep making shit up.
The word "oxygen" doesn't appear once in the official autopsy. The cause of death is cardiopulmonary arrest. That isn't caused by "neck compression" btw.
When i was a whee lad I sat on my brother's back for a few minutes
He threw up and passed out
This was when I was 90lbs
No it didnt.
Your anecdotes are worthless mr anonymous.
>"nO iT dIDn'T!!!1!"
Vaxed?
No matter what i say itll be a lie. Why would you believe anything anyone anonymous says? Your stories are lies and youre full of shit. Kys already or put on a trip so i can filter your troon ass.
Anon you're the troon here
A cartoon
I wish fren
i'll smooch you when you transition
Your brother is a weak pussy, I am afraid
Oh ok I guess the autopsy did say he suffocated after all
No blood on the kid, no fingerprints on the murder weapon. That's enough for me. If you can't produce material evidence a single eyeball witness isn't gonna cut it in my opinion.
So Kyle Rittenhouse should be in jail?
What evidence was there that Rittenhouse did something wrong?
did you miss the part when he killed people?
And it was proven in court through video evidence and more that it was self defense.
and? i'm not the same anon you replied to. you asked what evidence there existed of wrong doing. he killed people
but imagine if there was no video. OP is saying that rittenhouse should have gone to jail in that case.
>but imagine if there was no video
What the frick are you even trying to argue right now?
>Uhm... just imagine in this case if X and Y didn't happen!?
Just pick a proper case instead like the Chauvin trial in which he got convicted because of an agenda.
stop being an idiot. it's a good example because it shifts your bias to a new perspective. if there was only eye testimony and no video, almost everyone there would've said that that rittenhouse murdered in cold blood because he was mostly alone surrounded by antifa.
According to OP rittenhouse should have gone to jail in that case.
No it was not a good example because you take a real life trial and goes "WELL IF X,Y and Z DIDN'T HAPPEN HERE IT WOULD BE THE SAME THING!"
>According to OP rittenhouse should have gone to jail in that case.
We already talked about this and it's not even remotely close to the same situation.
There WAS video. Holy frick you people live in a different deranged reality.
get a load of this moron. i think you guys are literally too stupid to argue about this stuff. go jerk off to your bbc troony porn or whatever you closeted /misc/tards fap to
Your mental gymnastics with this Rittenhouse shit are worse than any of the homosexuals arguing against reasonable doubt ITT.
You haven't even watched the movie and you're here to troll. 12 Angry Men is about whether the kid did it at ALL. Rittenhouse was about it was self-defense or not
How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning?
You mean the people who were attacking him as he tried to get away? have a nice day stupid homosexual.
It's literally unbelievable that a "human" could be this stupid
No. Did you miss the part where a mob bum rushed him and all three turned out to be convicted felons -- one a child molester?
The testimony from the guy that got shot is great. This is the exact moment the prosecution's entire case collapsed.
https://www.youtube.com/live/Bv21bE9PWtE?si=el6NqctAqpGSV_uF&t=10306
Still hilarious
>no evidence to convict the kid ftom 12AM
>chuds: he did it, guilty!
>video of Rittenhouse literally shooting people
>chuds: he didn't do it, innocent!
in that instance it was a self defense situation which is legal
>go counter-protest with an assault rifle
>antagonize and provoke the protesters
>threaten them with your rifle
>get scared and start waddling away
>you're fat and unfit so after a few feet you drop on the ground
>panic and start shooting into the crowd
>""""""""self-defense"""""""
if you have to make stuff up to support your case, then you don't have a case
yeah
Rittenhouse shot a guy who was aiming a pistol in his face.
the 2nd dude was just trying to stop the fighting tho.
He should have let the police handle it, chud.
He killed no people
Quads of truth.
The Ox-Bow Incident is a way better Henry Fonda prejudice/mob rule movie
israeli propaganda intended to build sympathy for evil shit like the Innocence Project
What no one in this thread is asking about is why the movie was made in the first place. I think there was something wrong with society in the 50's that lead to this movie being made. Maybe the amount of prejudice was through the roof but I'm not a historian I wouldn't know.
liberal propaganda
Maybe the police should do better work
the kid was guilty because Lee Cobb hated his son.
In real life the Warren Court was a disaster and kept NYC a hellhole until Giuliani.
I blame this movie for letting the Innocence Project do all the damage they've done
I blame the french for being c**ts and the americ**t oederasts that thought "hey, lets model our judicial system on pederasts, not from brits cos theyre meanies that wouldnt give us independence"
Imagine a modern day remake of the movie
>jury of your peers
>black women
This doesn't seem right.
seems kino
>Usual Suspects-style ending where the kid walks into an alley and practices some overhand knife lunges
it was just someone who looked and sounded exactly like him and happened tto have the same fingerprints and the same motive, someone who no one had ever seen before and who escaped without a trace.
>let's just bomb New York so the Russians will think we accidentally bombed Moscow
This guys is full of ideas.
>"What was the name of movie you saw"
>"It was a who dunnit called 'The Fabulous Mrs. Bainbridge'"
>"I saw that movie, it was called "The MAGNIFICENT Mrs. Bainbridge"
>"YOU'RE RIGHT! I change my vote, he's not guilty! Me misremembering a small portion of a movie title that I saw a month ago is totally the same as a guy forgetting the entire movie title, not having a ticket stub, not being able to remember anything about the movie, and none of the staff having seen him at the theater!"
Reminder that the guy who wrote this contrived story that doesn't even work as intended also wrote a pro Sacco-Vanzetti film. He was an anarchist POS who hates justice.
>Someone else broke into the apartment
>We found him, its a black kid
What do
You should ALWAYS give minorities the benefit of the doubt CHUD
The whole point of the movie was a warning that one ~~*person*~~ can change the will of men.
>BUT ISN'T IT POSSIBLE THAT TWO GUYS ENTERED THE SAC O SUDS RIGHT AFTER THE TWO YUTES ARGUED WITH THE CLERK AND STOLE TUNA FROM HIM AND THEN SHOT THE CLERK TO DEATH FOR SOME REASON WHILE DRIVING THE EXACT SAME KIND OF CAR THE DEFENDANTS HAD, THEN DROVE AWAY WITHOUT ANYBODY NOTICING THEM, YOU DUMB HILLBILLY?
But they didn't have the same car. Did we watch the same movie?
He was arguing that before Tomei corrected him.
oh it's been a while
I should rewatch it
>wasn't the same car, was a mechanically district car that left distinct physical evidence at the scene (tire tracks, positraction
>defendants had no prior relationship with victim and no unique or compelling motive (clerk was killed in a robbery, quite literally a random act)
>defendants never in possession of a weapon similar to the murder weapon which was found on the murderer
and in fact the defendants in this case actually were being subjected to prejudice, as they were New Yorkers in the Deep South.
There wasn’t any prejudice the movie goes out of the way to show the prosecutor in a positive light even the prick judge is ultimately very fair
now, I could've ignored you and wrote nothing- which I KNOW YOU HATE!
So I wrote this
ridiculous post.
for (You).
The kid obviously fricking did it and all those jurors got gaslit.
I think it's pretty clear that guiltychads have fully defeated innocucks in every 12 Angry Men thread hosted thus far.
Childhood is thinking Henry Fonda is the good guy.
Adulthood is realizing that Jack Warden, the guy who just wanted to go to the damn Baseball game is the actual good guy. Who fricking cares about some Puerto Rican anyway unless he plays for the Yankees?
ARE YOU SAYING IT'S IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE FATHER STABBED HIMSELF TO DEATH TO FRAME HIS SON?
The whole point of the film is that he looks guilty as frick because of those testimonies. Once you find out the neighbour is senile and the lady is blind the whole story falls apart. The problem with it from a narrative stand point is that it doesn't provide an acceptable alternative. It doesn't provide anything at all quite frankly, just as in real life. This is what mindbreaks most of you dumb frickers. It's not for a judge ( in this case jury) to fill in the blanks. The two witnesses are dodgy af.
The film is a classic because it shows how moronic justice by a jury system is. Most people are either too dumb or simply couldn't care less.
It is really interesting to read posts written by people with an IQ of approximately 90. It is genuinely so interesting to understand how people like that view the world. Thank you for making this post.
says the mindbroken dumb fricker
He looks guilty because:
>His alibi claims he went to the movies yet couldn't name what movie he saw or describe them
>Had the same style of weapon that was used to kill his father
And Henry Ford breaks the rules of a juror by doing his own detective work.
oh i am not saying the kid is innocent. I am just saying that the witnesses aren't reliable. And that undermines a lot of the evidence. Obviously he is suspect. All it means is that the police didn't do their jobs properly. Jurors shouldn't do their own investigation obviously. The film is about the stupidity of a jury based legal system.
Superior Honda courtroom film
True
they build a case around the testimony of two witnesses, they had no concrete evidence and both witnesses where unreliable. If the kid was guilty the attorney should had made a better job with the evidence, and if the kid was innocent the defendant should had made a better job on questioning the witnesses, it's a good lesson overall
This movie fricking stinks on so many levels. If you wanted to make a movie about a jury slowly coming to terms with the evidence it could have been executed so much more smarter and efficiently. As it is the writing and conclusions are so contrived that it's sickeningly dishonest. I can only think brainlets enjoy this tripe because it's mastubatory "I am smart" hogwash.
On the waterfront was better
12 BBC Only Cucks
>BUT ISN'T IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU'RE A LYING Black person LOVING prostitute?
>that woman wears glasses and she wasn't wearing them in court because she likes to dress younger than she is, so we have to assume that she didn't wear them when she claimed to have witnessed the murder
the biggest asspull of the entire story, who in the frick could possibly think this was at all reasonable?
not assume, doubt
what's there to doubt? That was never brought up in court and as a juror you can't make shit up to fit your own narrative.
an EYE witness has to have their eyes judged and he had evidence enough to cast doubt on them.
that's not evidence at all. Why nobody asked him "how do you know she wasn't wearing the glasses at the time?" and instead everyone just went along with it as ridiculous
that's the level evidence for doubt, not for proof
>am i convinced she wore glasses?
>what would convince me she did or did not wear glasses
that's the evidence required for doubts, you have to have a brain first and use it second.
It's funny how chuds will stretch reasonable doubt to absurd lengths for Chauvin (Floyd just HAPPENED to OD after somebody choked him for 9 minutes) but won't do it for a fictional brown kid
>choked him
guess you didn't watch the trial
He had enough fent in him to kill (you) if you took it and just sat there doing nothing.
>I'M VOTING GUILTY BECAUSE I HATE MY OWN SON AND AM PROJECTING MY INSECURITIES ONTO THIS CASE
The Jack Lemmon version is superior
the tv directing is really flat and boring for like 2 acts. not sure if i approve. cast was pretty godly outside fricking tony danza.
I fully agree. I hate that it still includes the knife moment though. This would have resulted in a mistrial. The jury is not supposed to investigate the case. He should have simply owned the same knife and been familiar with it as a popular item at many stores or something else.
>be when i just turned 18 and get called up for jury duty
>be left leaning
>jury ends up letting the black guy that raped an old white grandma go because "BUT WHAT IF HE'S NOT LYING??"
the justice system is a joke
One of the most delusional threads I’ve seen on this board which is saying a lot
You know this guy represents Satan in the movie right?
TWO WORDS: REASONABLE. DOUBT.
The movie is great but the American justice system is a fricking joke.
Kyle Rittenhouse killed no humans
We literally had 7 months straight of mass leftwing BLM protests alongide firey but mostly peaceful riots defended, deflected, ignored, and even outright supported by vast institutions all during a supposedly deadly virus that we had to shut down all of society....except for the left
Insert pepe
Leftoids....you literally are defending rioting and looting and demonizing people defending themselves, property, and their communities. You literally don't even believe in self defense
Spare me your whinging on Kyle. You have no leg to stand on. Dilate
I'm sick of having the same meaningless conversations that we already had on Cinemaphile time and time again. You homosexuals should get some fricking girlfriends already.
discuss the moobie or leave the thread moron.