No, his actual argument was >he a good boy, he dindu nuffin, he was finna boutta get his life straight, he was a community activist and an aspiring artist
Name one concrete evidence against the kid, and remember, what a testimony is not concrete. In fact cases supported mainly by witnesses testimonies are doomed to fail
He's honestly as bad as Lee J. Cobb's character with his prejudices. He wants so badly to believe the kid is innocent that he doesn't even objectively look at the evidence. He goes looking for reasons to tear it apart or dismiss its credibility.
>He goes looking for reasons to tear it apart or dismiss its credibility.
This is objectively what you're supposed to do though. You can only say he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt if you have tried to doubt. Americans are statiat morons who don't realize that.
>you can't prove aliens didn't come down with a swtichblade and kill the father, and wipe his memory so he didn't know the name of the movie >reasonable doubt, CHUD
The purpose of a juror is to consider the weight of available evidence (all evidence, not just what the state allows you to think about) and try to construct a reasonable theory in which the defendant is not guilty. It is only if the ENTIRE SPACE of such possible theories has been explored that a rational man can declare someone guilty beyond reasonble doubt.
3 months ago
Anonymous
You are absolutely incorrect, it's almost impressive. A juror is not a member of the defense.
You are moronic.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Why do you allow the state to tell you what you're allowed to believe and how you're allowed to reason? The presumption of innocence applies to the jury. It does not only apply to the defence attorney.
>you can't prove aliens didn't come down with a swtichblade and kill the father, and wipe his memory so he didn't know the name of the movie >reasonable doubt, CHUD
Reasonable doubt: >the prosecution says this knife is unique >i know this knife isn't unique, therefore I doubt the veracity of this claim >i have proven this knife isn't unique
When someone says something to you, that you know to be false, it is reasonable to doubt what that person says.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I don't even get what the "uniqueness" of the knife matters. It's definitively known the kid had that same knife and he was no longer in possession of that knife because he stabbed his father with it and ran out of the house.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>I don't get why it matters if the validity of a piece of evidence is based on something objectively and provably false
3 months ago
Anonymous
The uniqueness of the items is inconsequential aside from being a point in establishing that the shopkeeper remembers that he sold it to the kid.
Explain how it matters beyond that when it's established that the kid had a knife just like it, the kid admitted that and the kid said he no longer had said knife because it conveniently fell out of his pocket?
3 months ago
Anonymous
It matters when falsehoods are stated in a court of law.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>I don't even get what the "uniqueness" of the knife matters.
Which is kind of the point, why would the prosecution say it at all? There is no reason to lie about the knife and yet they did which reflects badly on the rest of the prosecutions case because if they're willing to lie about this what else are they lying about? This is one of those things that got OJ off because the police moronicly planted evidence and made the jury question everything.
3 months ago
Anonymous
The fact the kids lawyer didn’t wipe the floor with the prosecution for that is also an indication he lacked qualified representation.
3 months ago
Anonymous
They addressed it in the movie if I'm not mistaken
3 months ago
Anonymous
I can’t remember, we never talk about the kid’s shitty lawyer or lack thereof.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Why do you allow the state to tell you what you're allowed to believe and how you're allowed to reason? The presumption of innocence applies to the jury. It does not only apply to the defence attorney.
We need to bring back competency tests for voting and jury duty specifically to prevent people like you from participating in these things
You think that innocent until proven guilty and reasonable doubt mean acting like you have a railroad spike sticking out of your skull. Which, to be completely fair, appears to be your normal state of being
3 months ago
Anonymous
You: A unique value satisfying property P exists
Me: Here are two values, not equal to each other, satisfying property P. Therefore your claim is disproven.
You: NOOOOOOO WE NEED TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE LIKE YOU FROM JURIES
3 months ago
Anonymous
Lol, you think trying to use formal logic phases me? I'm a fricking mathematician you dumb chimp. How fricking embarrassing, you're like a child wearing his father's work clothes.
have a nice day
3 months ago
Anonymous
You're a mathematician and you don't understand basic logic. I didn't realize the competency crisis had gotten so bad.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>um ackshually my uneducated Black personbabble on this topic is more knowledgeable
Alright, let's do some problems with sets.
Here's a list of sets with a cardinality of zero: >the set of women who have told you that they love you >the set of times your father has told you that he's proud of you >the set of instances where you said something remotely worth listening to >the set of days where you made the world better by waking up
That's not formal logic. That's just logic. A mathematician would know what formal logic is because they would have been exposed to it graduate school.
>A mathematician would know what formal logic is because they would have been exposed to it graduate school
Incorrect, but thanks for playing. Please reference the above list.
3 months ago
Anonymous
So now you look like an utterly buttblasted moron.
3 months ago
Anonymous
No, but you sure do with this weak punk b***h response kek
Learn from this, I know learning isn't your strong suit, but I believe in ya champ! If you wish hard enough maybe you'll be able to say something not completely moronic
3 months ago
Anonymous
No one is trolled bruh. at most people feel a little sorry for you. Usually these threads last a little longer before you're reduced to feeble attempts at insults.
3 months ago
Anonymous
You are such a homosexual kek, look at you trying to be weasely about it. You have zero confidence, you're not just moronic, you're also not even a man.
Punk homosexual b***h, don't reply to anyone here until you grow a backbone
3 months ago
Anonymous
let me guess, fishtank brought you here.
3 months ago
Anonymous
What part of "don't reply until you grow a backbone" did you find hard to follow?
3 months ago
Anonymous
You could've just said yes. because that's all you did. feel free to have the last word.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I don't really need to say anything, you know as well as anyone that you got blown the frick out, Do yourself a favor and slink away now, you queer
3 months ago
Anonymous
I accept your concession.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Holy seethe
>74 seconds apart
They don't make brainlets like they used to, back in the day you tards had the sense to be a little bit trick about samegayging.
Don't even bother with the screenshot, we all know how to inspect element
3 months ago
Anonymous
Another brilliant deduction by math Sherlock Holmes
3 months ago
Anonymous
3 months ago
Anonymous
3 months ago
Anonymous
Are you actually a woman?
3 months ago
Anonymous
Holy seethe
3 months ago
Anonymous
Embarrassing
3 months ago
Anonymous
what a fricking moron
3 months ago
Anonymous
That's not formal logic. That's just logic. A mathematician would know what formal logic is because they would have been exposed to it graduate school.
Statist*
I'm a researcher and way more "scientists" are failing to realize this too. You're supposed to validate a theory over a competing one by finding something which the competing one has trouble explaining and yours doesn't. Instead, the modern flock of scientists just finds evidence supporting their own theory, even if it also supports a competing one. That information is useless!
It’s absolutely shocking how jury nullification has been thoroughly stripped from the public consciousness. Good men on English juries were tortured and imprisoned for not reaching “the correct” verdict as decided by the crown and now we have people bending over backwards to do the prosecutions job. It’s no wonder Chauvin was convicted and frankly it’s a miracle Kenosha Kyle was rightfully acquitted.
Chauvin was convicted because he couldn’t afford a decent lawyer. Rittenhouse was acquitted because the judge wienerblocked the shit out of the prosecution’s attempts to expand the scope of the trial away from the video of rittenhouse on his back, surrounded by people with guns, about to be bludgeoned with a skateboard, before he started shooting.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>surrounded by people with guns
I don't remember that, weren't they just about to beat him up?
I think he was 100% in the right either way btw
3 months ago
Anonymous
You can see at least three dudes with guns in the video, one of the most famous pictures of the “victim” is blood gushing out of his arm, with a gun in his hand.
And yeah, he was acquitted because the prosecution’s case relied upon inventing the concept of premeditated self-defense.
3 months ago
Anonymous
The dude who's bicep he vaporized had a illegal gun in that hand and was seconds away from getting the drop on him
3 months ago
Anonymous
>I don't remember that, weren't they just about to beat him up?
Two people in the crowd had a firearm, the first (the guy with porn videos) fired his into the air while Kyle was running from the pedophile, the second guy was the "medic" that was about to shoot him in the face after a fake surrender.
3 months ago
Anonymous
The dude who's bicep he vaporized had a illegal gun in that hand and was seconds away from getting the drop on him
You can see at least three dudes with guns in the video, one of the most famous pictures of the “victim” is blood gushing out of his arm, with a gun in his hand.
And yeah, he was acquitted because the prosecution’s case relied upon inventing the concept of premeditated self-defense.
Crazy
Anyone feel like posting the webm? Not sure if it would be a ban nowadays
3 months ago
Anonymous
Here's the webm of him running towards the police blockade after ventilating the pedo.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Sorry you're gonna have to break this down for absolute morons. Where's the guns that aren't Ritten's? I only noticed a skateboard
I've also never seen the initial part where he's trying to run away, but I'm sure suppressing that was part of the leftie narrative
3 months ago
Anonymous
The first gun is never seen, only heard several minutes before the webm and the guy who gets shot in the bicep at 0:21 has a Glock in his hand.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Well I don't see it in that low-res video
Again though that doesn't mean I disbelieve it. The dude did after all testify that he had a Glock
Just scary how easy it is to frame a video like that as unwarranted aggression
3 months ago
Anonymous
That’s a different video. There were many. Notice how that one avoids getting the guy’s hand in the shot? It’s because it’s clenched around a Glock
3 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah see
Well I don't see it in that low-res video
Again though that doesn't mean I disbelieve it. The dude did after all testify that he had a Glock
Just scary how easy it is to frame a video like that as unwarranted aggression
I'll shut up about it now cause it's offtopic but I just wanna reiterate I never disbelieved that the other people had guns, was just saying I neither remembered it nor saw it
Imagine defending this obvious israeli movie that was probably made because that israelite pedophile got lynched and they started sweating and decided to subvert the justice system.
>I don't get why it matters if the validity of a piece of evidence is based on something objectively and provably false
. people are put in jail for even more innocent falsehoods stated in a court of law, and trying to claim the knife was unique was, at best, utter incompetence or malice.
>This is objectively what you're supposed to do though
No, that's up to the lawyers. You look at the evidence as a juror, and Fonda would have been thrown out for bringing a knife.
he was standing up against a court and a room full of israelites
you know the judge and prosecutor are israeli, and you know the guy going to the ballgame are israeli
but the other 10 men are sneaky so he has to weed them out
>in the 50s your just was 12 white men with college degrees who actually cared about justice and would spend as long as it takes to be thorough with their judgement >Now you get 4 stay at home moms that watch CNN all day, 6 random minorities that can barely read, and 2 80 year old grandpas that can barely stay awake during the trial
don't forget >and the lawyers themselves will, at every point, do everything they can to paint every aspect of the case as dry, disinteresting, and overly complex, so the jury will tune out
Never said he's not guilty. All he did was point out the flaws in the prosecutions arguments and lack of evidence. The whole movie is only about a reasonable doubt.
Needs a remake with a jury of 12 black men where one will convince the others that the white suspect is guilty and needs to be executed while the other 11 thought he wasn't guilty at first. Directed by Jordan Peele
Both sides accepted a disproportionate number of female jurors. From an original jury pool of 40 percent white, 28 percent black, 17 percent Hispanic, and 15 percent Asian, the final jury for the trial had ten women and two men, of whom nine were black, two white, and one Hispanic
>oh sorry but the witness couldn't have seen anything because she obviously wears glasses and is farsighted >I know this because only i noticed at an angle across a room an indent around her nose that could only have come from glasses
>The kid couldn't remember a thing about the movie he claimed to have watched on the night of the murder >Yeah, but can you remember the exact number of hair follicles in the 3rd billed lead's mustache from the second trailer that played before the movie you saw a month ago? >Well I- >GOTCHA
Of all the specious arguments Juror 8 made, the movie one always felt like the weakest, but the guy with the glasses folds immediately like he has no comeback, and then they just move on
Theaters were different in the 40s/50s. Movies basically ran on a loop or in a sequence, they never stopped running, with news every so often, sometimes an hour, sometimes half an hour. It was essentially like broadcast television except with only one channel. You bought a ticket, walked into a movie mid-run, stayed as long as you wanted, and left.
Psycho was the first movie were you were not allowed to enter the theater after the movie began.
That wasn't his argument in the movie though. He really does turn around to the guy and go 'do you remember a movie you saw two months ago' and that's treated like it's a reasonable rebuttal to make.
that's another case of the evidence being based on either falsehood or things that simply weren't possible. They were told the angle of the knife wound and found it was not consistent with testimony.
You don't need to be an expert to know if they say the knife wound was downward, then that means the knife had to be held with the blade pointing down.
>the knife wound
Here's a case where modern knowledge actually helps, instead of hinders. Everyone today knows that if you intend to kill someone with a knife, you're going to stab them dozens of times. The reason is knife wounds don't splurt blood like they do in the movies and people don't just fall the frick over after one. So one knife wound contradicts intentional murder in a heated argument.
Who said it did? I've watched tons of gore videos and "they never stab once" is common knowledge because the news never reports that a murdered person was stabbed just once.
3 months ago
Anonymous
In this situation you're a fricking juror not a witness. This is literally the CSI effect. God you're a fricking idiot
3 months ago
Anonymous
Jurors are allowed to compare information in a case and see if it is consistent. They were told the angle of the knife wound, they know how to hold a knife.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Dude, when a judge gives jury instructions, they quite literally say the exact fricking opposite of that.
Where are you getting this shit from? Did you not take like a civics class or something at some point?
3 months ago
Anonymous
They're told to only consider the evidence presented at trial. They are not told they must never compare evidence presented at trial to other evidence presented at trial.
And now you're going to start screaming about the knife again.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I am going to ask you again.
Where are you getting this bullshit from?
3 months ago
Anonymous
From jury instructions. What do you think "consider" means?
3 months ago
Anonymous
>What do you think "consider" means?
I really think I should be asking you that at this point. I can only conclude from this that you haven't actually had jury duty, and likely are not even old enough to be on one.
This is almost impressive
3 months ago
Anonymous
Please copy/paste american jury instructions.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>consider the evidence put before you >hmmph silly judge, I’ve watched liveleao videos, I can interpret this and draw my own conclusions
This is literally how you come off. If I was on trial and I found out I had a smug Redditor like you on the jury, I’d catch another charge
3 months ago
Anonymous
consider and interpret are synonyms.
3 months ago
Anonymous
so your argument now is that jurors should just appear from the void and have no knowledge or experience outside of the trial.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>I can interpret this and draw my own conclusions
That is both your birthright and your duty as a rational human being. The entire purpose of a jury is to draw their own conclusion, otherwise the judge would decide guilt.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Its pretty clear that the goal of the movie is subversion. Specifically a liberal/israeli type of subversion where the victim is always blameless and it is the prejudice of society (represented by the jurors) that are at fault. The point is that the non-expert are always prejudicied and should surrender their will to expert who will always have the good rational solution. This is also why all the jurors are presented as having subjective reasons for their guilty verdict.
But to do so the israeli author present to us the msot convoluted magical tales ever made which in itself is indicative of how wrong the basic premise is.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>the victim is always blameless
a not guilty verdict isn't "this man has never committed a crime in his life."
3 months ago
Anonymous
Pilpul
You know what anon meant, in that case.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>resorts to /misc/ buzzwords when confronted
3 months ago
Anonymous
nta but that's not a pol buzzword you moron
3 months ago
Anonymous
yea, it is. its a /misc/ buzzword for "quibble."
3 months ago
Anonymous
Movie was released in 57. At the time any black dude facing trial met a group of people ready to pull the trigger. Only point the movie makes is prejudice will lead to mistakes and the only way to get a true judgement is by considering all the facts. Fonda doesn't say he's innocent just because, he's states why he finds the evidence to be flawed.
3 months ago
Anonymous
This is a gross misunderstanding of racial politics.
You think 13 does 50 is a new thing?
3 months ago
Anonymous
Doesn't mean every black person facing trial is guilty. And if you have any interest on a fair trial you should listen and think about everything that was presented regardless of your personal opinion
3 months ago
Anonymous
Which is what they did in the 50's, with predictable outcomes.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Another thing to consider is how EVERYTHING in the system is wrong by design.
If there is so many copies of that knife, why didnt the defense bring its own copy for example? Did they not, or even the fricking police, called the fricking manufacturer to know how many were made? Same thing with the old man, he is presented as an irrational senile man who cannot really know what reality is.
And again these all align within the context of a fictional piece of work, but the goal of that fiction isnt really entertainment, its subversion and judgment.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>all fiction is subversive!!
so you only watch youtubers and livestreams? maybe some sports?
3 months ago
Anonymous
>He said taht this specific piece of fiction is subversive >Therefore he said that all fiction is subversive! >As such he must watch only youtubers and livestreams. Perhaps sportsball.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Or i just didn't see the word "that" before "fiction."
3 months ago
Anonymous
the point of the story is the prosecution/investigators were lazy and expected the jury to be lazy too. the moral is that systemic laziness/corruption relies upon every participant of the system to continue to exist.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Thats the problem, you must accept the premise to begin with. And again its only acceptable for some because the ''System'' was one of muh white supremacy, evil patriarchy or whatever the equivalent was in 57.
For example, would you see liberals doing a reenactment of that piece with an allegorical equivalent of Derk Chauvin or Rittenhouse as the ''victim of the system''? Of course not.
3 months ago
Anonymous
see
A: stop making up an imaginary strawman to be the author of the story and attribute motivations to him. this is baby tier thought.
B: the overall point of the movie is the kid probably did stab his dad in a fit of passion. But that isn't first degree murder.
The point you're hung up on now is you think a "not guilty" verdict is "INNOCENT OF ALL CRIMES EVER!!" The kid probably did stab his dad. He is probably guilty of second or third degree murder or manslaughter. But that isn't what he was being charged with.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>If there is so many copies of that knife, why didnt the defense bring its own copy for example? Did they not, or even the fricking police, called the fricking manufacturer to know how many were made?
That’s literally addressed in the movie. What blows my mind is that the writer almost certainly intended for the suspect to be innocent if by your admission the film is so subversive, and people still say he’s guilty.
The entire point of the movie is to be brave enough to stand up against the mob if you feel something important is on the line. To be behaving like the characters who are literally written to be wrong is such a joke I can’t believe it.
3 months ago
Anonymous
A: stop making up an imaginary strawman to be the author of the story and attribute motivations to him. this is baby tier thought.
B: the overall point of the movie is the kid probably did stab his dad in a fit of passion. But that isn't first degree murder.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>B: the overall point of the movie is the kid probably did stab his dad in a fit of passion. But that isn't first degree murder.
????
I think you genuinely watched the wrong movie
3 months ago
Anonymous
No, you. Again, the kid is on trial for FIRST DEGREE MURDER. The evidence is not consistent with first degree murder.
3 months ago
Anonymous
You’re a clown bro. Watch the movie again except without moron vision.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I accept your concession.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I hope if you watch it again you remember me and realize you completely missed the plot. I don’t blame you though, it’s a lot of arguing. I can see how it could get confusing.
3 months ago
Anonymous
3 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, that’s what he’s on trial for. Good job.
3 months ago
Anonymous
First degree murder is premeditated. Murder that isn't premeditated is not first degree murder.
3 months ago
Anonymous
... oh god... you've never seen the movie... your knowledge of it comes exclusively from these threads...
3 months ago
Anonymous
First degree murder is premeditated. Murder that isn't premeditated is not first degree murder.
>Murder that isn't premeditated is not first degree murder.
That’s not at all what they were arguing about. They were arguing that there’s a chance the kid didn’t do it. This is literally the entire plot of the movie.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Took you a while to find a "source" that doesn't name the specific crime the kid was charged with.
FYI: there is no such thing as a generic "murder" trial. Juries deliver a verdict on specific charges brought against a defendant. The specific charge in 12 angry men was Murder in the First Degree. He can still have stabbed his dad and still be not guilty of first degree murder. The police/prosecution can bring him back to trial for another type of murder or even manslaughter.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Manslaughter and murder in the 2nd are lesser included offenses of murder in the 1st, so he'd be protected by double jeopardy rules. Otherwise the state would be incentivized to just hit everyone with a murder in the first charge and then step the charge down at different trials until they got a conviction.
3 months ago
Anonymous
you are not a lawyer.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I'm a mathematician.
3 months ago
Anonymous
that doesn't understand basic logic
3 months ago
Anonymous
actually what they do in murder trials is charge everything they can conceivably charge, and then leave it to the jury. 12 angry men is based on a situation that may or may not have happened, where they charged a kid guilty of manslaughter, at best, and exclusively charged him with first degree murder. because they were lazy.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>where they charged a kid guilty of manslaughter, at best,
second degree, surely?
3 months ago
Anonymous
one stab wound means unintentional, they probably grappled and the dad fell on the knife, then the kid ran.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>one stab wound means unintentional, they probably grappled and the dad fell on the knife, then the kid ran.
completely hypothetical.
3 months ago
Anonymous
How would you feel if you were on trial?
3 months ago
Anonymous
I would feel like a Black person.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Wrong, Black folk always plea bargain.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Took you a while to find a "source" that doesn't name the specific crime the kid was charged with.
??? That’s the fricking Wikipedia page for the movie
>He can still have stabbed his dad and still be not guilty of first degree murder.
The arguments presented were that there’s a chance he didn’t stab his father. What the frick do you think he brought the other knife in for? Am I being trolled? Is this an old Cinemaphile meme where anon plays the part of the 11 other jurors and make someone recreate the movie? Is this all a ruse?
3 months ago
Anonymous
>movie is about a kid on trial for first degree murder >the jurors decide he isn't guilty of first degree murder based upon the evidence not adding up
I'm meeting you halfway here bro. Maybe the kid did stab his father in the middle of an argument, but that isn't first degree murder.
3 months ago
Anonymous
They did a great job on depicting the different personalities that would lead to wrong judgement. The lazy one, the guy that made up his mind the second he saw the defendant, the one that basically just wants to feel in power for a minute, that wants to be the one to impart justice by his own hand
All this people exist in real life. By the billions
3 months ago
Anonymous
And my point is that the psychological aspect of the piece is only a mean to an end.
If the movie really was about exploring those character, it would have been better served by having all the event leading up to the point where they have to deliberate going smoothly and normally, the only thing left being each of the jurors' personal biases towards the victim.
Instead, these biases are simply a part of a greater whole where the entire system ''conspired'' (either directly or indirectly) against the victim, and the only one who could see trough all of this being one guy. The only conclusion from all of this is that the goal was subversion, everything else being subject to that end, and specifically a liberal/israeli type of subversion where the victim or the person in position of inferiority is blameless in its predicament.
3 months ago
Anonymous
He's not blameless, he wasn't found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
3 months ago
Anonymous
Within the limit imposed by the fiction, the system wanted to charge the guy with first degree murder, the system came to that conclusion because it was biased and critically flawed because of said biases. The sytem was wrong. Everything else is technicalities (the degree of murder etc...) and not worth consideration in this discution because its not about said technicalities.
Its a slightly more sophisticated version of ''He dindu nothin'' exept that the premises you must accept to get to that conclusion are baffling to any rational person, because the author was more preocupied by the subversion aspect of it than by the story/psychological aspect of its fictional creation.
Again if the system would have worked correctly and all that was left were the personal biases of the juror nobody would care. But we are forced to accept critical failure at every level of this trial up to absurdity.
And then we are moralised on our biases (including believing in the system) trough a slopily written story.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I found the center of the story to be: jury duty is a serious business and you should take it as such. If after deliberation you find reasonable doubt holds up sentencing a guy to death is an irresponsibility. A fatal one. Nothing subversive about it. It's a system that's been present for thousands of years.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Nothing subversive about it
This. The scenes where they go "uhm actually immigrants are based hard workers" and "oh my god sir are you racist? we will shun your strawman like a le epic theater production" were needed to show that jury duty is a serious business and had no agenda behind them
3 months ago
Anonymous
That’s more about how that type of galvanized racism requires the complete absence of all other types of thought.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah i found the part where they all cringed at the old dude to be both funny and too much I'll give you that. You have to place yourself in the time of the film though. It was basically a new and different thought to even consider a black man worthy of judgement.
Take the race aspect off the movie, make it a white boy that got accused and the center or the story is the same
3 months ago
Anonymous
> It was basically a new and different thought to even consider a black man worthy of judgement.
This isn’t true at all. Black people had been considered free men in most of the US since the the 1700s
You’re projecting propaganda as truth
3 months ago
Anonymous
Yikes... have you ever read a public school textbook ever? All black people were forced to live in the woods and in caves until MLK Jr was resurrected and overthrew the Sith Empire and made everything right again.
Then two yt ppo were kept alive on the Ark that Bernie Sanders built and now we have raycism again.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Redditor
3 months ago
Anonymous
Not really
3 months ago
Anonymous
I hate to break it to you dude, but this “color blind republic” shit has been tried for the past 200 years and it just doesn’t work
Blacks do not act like white people and have a very different sense of what’s right. Trying to get along with black people and treating them like whites wasn't invented in the 1960s
3 months ago
Anonymous
It was. Lynching crowds existed past the 60's
3 months ago
Anonymous
"Lynching crowds" never existed in the first place. It was always a Left Wing hypothetical.
3 months ago
Anonymous
The pedophile the ADL was formed to protect was literally lynched by vigilantes.
Stop falling for the trap of denying facts simply because you don’t like the type of people who say them.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>this “color blind republic” shit has been tried for the past 200 years and it just doesn’t work
The US had codified racial slavery for 40 of those 200 years.
3 months ago
Anonymous
The point is everyone has aspects of every juror in different degrees. Everyone doubts, everyone has biases/superstitions, everyone is lazy sometimes, and everyone has the capacity for reasoned thought. Each of the characters are one note to explore the interactions between aspects of self.
When they teach this movie in middle school, the teacher will always ask “who’s the ideal juror?” Everyone immediately says Fonda, and often students need to be reminded the Vulcan exists
3 months ago
Anonymous
The point of the movie is to cry for muh criminal scumbag he a good boy he dindu nuffin. I don't give a shit if the hack writer thinks the criminal is innocent or about his shit caricatures of the decent jury members who would have shipped his ass to jail.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, guys like you are the vast majority of jury members. That's why reasonable people is needed too
3 months ago
Anonymous
Kek
There is no way you can guess that she required glasses at all to see or that she is short sighter and needed them to see at a distance. J8 was grasping at something only he saw and made a flying mental leap to justify an indent on a woman's face at an angle from several feet away.
>Cry for muh criminal scumbag he a good boy he dindu nuffin
Could be a line in the movie if you took out the “muh”
3 months ago
Anonymous
There's nothing worse or more dangerous than someone like you who thinks your moronic beliefs are reasonable
3 months ago
Anonymous
Another thing to consider is how EVERYTHING in the system is wrong by design.
If there is so many copies of that knife, why didnt the defense bring its own copy for example? Did they not, or even the fricking police, called the fricking manufacturer to know how many were made? Same thing with the old man, he is presented as an irrational senile man who cannot really know what reality is.
And again these all align within the context of a fictional piece of work, but the goal of that fiction isnt really entertainment, its subversion and judgment.
I’ll add that it’s a very specifically racially oriented attack angle of casting doubt on established fact and trying to develop fear, uncertainty and doubt into a group
If the host demographic were making this film it would be about establishing a more credible story and establishing trust in contrast to undermining evidence, which can be done infinitely regarding anything (critical theory)
Yeah but the not guilty verdict hinges on a magical fairyland tales where after the argument someone entered the room killed the guy with the same knife and disapeared without anybody noticing and did so for not apparent motive at all.
What you're not understanding now is first degree murder requires very specific criteria. Premeditation, no passion. If they were fighting and he stabbed his dad once and ran away, that's a crime of passion, and a completely different crime.
This is why we say guilty and not guilty, because the point isn't to say "this person committed no crime, ever," the point is to say "this person is not guilty of this specific crime."
They can definitely charge the kid with manslaughter and go back to trial, and that's an open and shut case.
If I was in the jury and the alleged perpetrator was black, I would've voted guilty every single time. Even if the rest of the jury would gang up on me, I would still vote him guilty. Even if Jesus Christ would come down from heaven and testify the kids innocence, I would still vote guilty.
Btw I'm not racist, I just don't love them
Beyond a shadow of a doubt means that if you have any reasonable doubt at all, you must acquit. This is wht autistic people are automatically excluded from the jury pool
No, the point of a jury is to be judged by your peers, read, normal people. Not disconnected wealthy academics, not royalty with no life experience, not robots. The only thing jurors are instructed to not consider is information specifically about the case, not presented at trial.
I am getting really fricking tired of entertaining your shit.
Do you disagree with juries being sequestered or screened in regard to bias on the case?
Maybe we should call the hairdresser who knows all the town gossip, she probably can consider the evidence a lot better than anyone there!
You are a drooling moron, stop pretending to know anything about this topic
>The prosecution's job is to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the killer >fails to do so >WHAT THE FRICK WHY WON'T THE JURY DECIDE TO KILL THE GUY THIS IS AN OUTRAGE
>it's possible that the death threat was figurative speech
>it's possible that the disabled witness couldn't have made it to the door in time
>it's possible that the murdered was taller than the boy, since the stab wound angled downwards
>it's possible that the boy's inability to recall specific details is normal, since a lot of people are like that
>it's possible that the witness, who was trying to sleep when she saw the killing, would not have had glasses on or the time to put them on, making her story questionable
>it's possible that the real murderer purchased a switchblade of the same type that was found
Juror 8 was right about everything. The boy had to go free.
There is no way you can guess that she required glasses at all to see or that she is short sighter and needed them to see at a distance. J8 was grasping at something only he saw and made a flying mental leap to justify an indent on a woman's face at an angle from several feet away.
Glasses weighing less than a pound or being effective is a recent invention. They fricked your face and everyone could tell you needed them if you wore them regularly.
>Glasses weighing
And you know for a fact that she is near sighted and need these heavy glasses to see that far out and I guess you also know her level of vision as well? You have nothing you have less than nothing since you are making these claims and cross examinations of the witness without the actual witness to clarify
>And you know for a fact that she is near sighted and need these heavy glasses to see that far out and I guess you also know her level of vision as well? You have nothing you have less than nothing since you are making these claims and cross examinations of the witness without the actual witness to clarify >Said juror #4 angrily
>who was trying to sleep when she saw the killing, would not have had glasses on or the time to put them on
I need to rewatch this anyway, but anyone got that scene? I can't remember what exactly he claimed
All I know is that even without my glasses I would definitely be able to see it if someone across the street got murdered
>old man projects feelings of insecurity on one witness and somehow just recalls other key witness had eyeglass dimples calling into question her "eyesight"
What a crock of shit
I like these threads because it's just shitposters going "y-yeah but he clearly did it!" when the entire premise of the movie is that all evidence we hear about can be easily put into question
If anything, you should point out that jurors aren't allowed to start their own private investigations and he should get thrown out
Goddamn man I knew you were gonna go that route, I fricking hate that way of arguing so this will be my last response to you
I said independent investigations will get him thrown off. Basically what this guy said too
Sure the jurors could deliberate all you want l, but doing "experiments" where J8 shuffles across the floor as slowly as possible would immediately result in a mistral being called.
You said "he didn't do any investigation!"
I gave you an example of one he did. You then started to get emotionally charged and throwing "SO WHAT HE ONLY DID IT BECAUSE HE HAD DOUBTS" at me
I proved to you that a mistrial should have been called. Now frick off
Sure the jurors could deliberate all you want l, but doing "experiments" where J8 shuffles across the floor as slowly as possible would immediately result in a mistral being called.
>what if he actually died of a heart attack and there was no knife involved at all? we don't have the coroner here to counter that claim so I'll just say it's 100% undoubtably true 🙂
Unreasonable doubt: [...]
Reasonable doubt: >the prosecution says this knife is unique >i know this knife isn't unique, therefore I doubt the veracity of this claim >i have proven this knife isn't unique
When someone says something to you, that you know to be false, it is reasonable to doubt what that person says.
Fortunately there are more ways to prove someone is guilty than there were back in the '50s but the film seems to confuse "any doubt" with "reasonable doubt" as too many people do.
>entire movie is extremely straight forward about how moronic americans will lynch innocent people for no reason because they are impatient selfish sociopaths and will kill anyone in their way if it means they miss their commercial baseball game >90 years later moronic mutt descendants of the same americans you parody go online and think they sound smart because they found Cinemaphile online and gave themselves brain damage
>he wasn't white the system made him do it! >*looks directly at the camera >bow to none whites, Goyim! BOW AND GIVE YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR PEOPLE'S FUTURE UP FOR THEM!
Using "simple facts and logic," you have to look at the accumulation of evidence:
Is it possible the boy just happened to say he was going to kill his dad before someone else did?
Sure.
Is it possible he just happened to buy the same type of knife used to kill his dad right before the murder?
Sure.
Is it possible he just happened to lose the knife right as the murder was taking place?
Sure.
Is it possible he went to the movies and somehow could not name a single thing about them and nobody saw him at the theatre?
Sure.
Is it possible the eyewitness across the street was wrong?
Sure.
Is it possible the eyewitness upstairs was wrong?
Sure.
Is it probable all of these things are just coincidences and the universe is conspiring to frame this kid?
No.
It is funny that you are not supposed to make value-judgments about the accused but they are willing to believe the old man upstairs just decided to condemn a boy to death because he wanted to feel important.
Also what was the motive for someone else killing the dad? If something was missing from the apartment it seems like it would have been brought up.
The movie is still entertaining -- you do not even have to agree with their verdict or conclusions.
Is it possible he was only charged with first degree murder and the eyewitness testimony and physical did not indicate a cold blooded premeditated murder?
Anon. The movie is about jury deliberations during a trial for first degree murder. There is no such thing as a “generic” murder trial. Today, a person suspected of first degree murder will also be charged with second, third, and a flavor or manslaughter.
And no, you did not refute this assertion, you showed ignorance of law.
Leftists you literally either pretend the firey but mostly peaceful riots didn't happen or they did happen and were good and demonized Kyle Rittenhouse alongside the Democrats, MSM, and left at large because you're all on the same side
For me it was all the proclamations that gathering for riots prevented zero risk of transmission for corona, right on the backs of their insane bullshit behavior. What a time.
I hate the australian state body, almost as much as I hate my own
there are only a few other government populations which I hate near as much
it boggles the mind, how extremely cucked the australians are
Pretty sure his actual argument was that the defendant's guilt had not been established beyond reasonable doubt, bro
this, tbh. you don't put someone on death tow unless it's an absolute certainty
This, muh freedumbz of obviously guilty shitskins is way more important than having a functional society
Ray Krone was my neighbor for a bit. You'd be surprised how easily you can be wrongly convicted.
You say this until you get put on trial for something
I don’t understand, I’m not on trial.
>I don’t understand
I know
No, you don’t.
Yes, I do
No, you don’t understand, you do understand.
No, his actual argument was
>he a good boy, he dindu nuffin, he was finna boutta get his life straight, he was a community activist and an aspiring artist
No it wasn't, but go off if you want
All me btw.
No, his argument was that he wasn't proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Low IQ people just can't grasp this concept.
watch the movie moron
Smartest /misc/tard
Yeah he was wrong thoughever
>Brainlets STILL think truth values in probabilistic logics can only be in {0,1}
I hope to God I'm never judged by a jury of 12 Americans.
>midwit thinks that logits are the same as concrete results
Kneel
Name one concrete evidence against the kid, and remember, what a testimony is not concrete. In fact cases supported mainly by witnesses testimonies are doomed to fail
He's honestly as bad as Lee J. Cobb's character with his prejudices. He wants so badly to believe the kid is innocent that he doesn't even objectively look at the evidence. He goes looking for reasons to tear it apart or dismiss its credibility.
or he just felt insulted by the prosecution trying to use racial prejudices instead of evidence so he demolished all of the "evidence" they had.
>He goes looking for reasons to tear it apart or dismiss its credibility.
This is objectively what you're supposed to do though. You can only say he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt if you have tried to doubt. Americans are statiat morons who don't realize that.
>you can't prove aliens didn't come down with a swtichblade and kill the father, and wipe his memory so he didn't know the name of the movie
>reasonable doubt, CHUD
that's an unreasonable doubt.
Thank you for agreeing with me. The purpose of a juror is to take the evidence from trial and directives from a judge, not speculate outside of that.
The purpose of a juror is to consider the weight of available evidence (all evidence, not just what the state allows you to think about) and try to construct a reasonable theory in which the defendant is not guilty. It is only if the ENTIRE SPACE of such possible theories has been explored that a rational man can declare someone guilty beyond reasonble doubt.
You are absolutely incorrect, it's almost impressive. A juror is not a member of the defense.
You are moronic.
Why do you allow the state to tell you what you're allowed to believe and how you're allowed to reason? The presumption of innocence applies to the jury. It does not only apply to the defence attorney.
Unreasonable doubt:
Reasonable doubt:
>the prosecution says this knife is unique
>i know this knife isn't unique, therefore I doubt the veracity of this claim
>i have proven this knife isn't unique
When someone says something to you, that you know to be false, it is reasonable to doubt what that person says.
I don't even get what the "uniqueness" of the knife matters. It's definitively known the kid had that same knife and he was no longer in possession of that knife because he stabbed his father with it and ran out of the house.
>I don't get why it matters if the validity of a piece of evidence is based on something objectively and provably false
The uniqueness of the items is inconsequential aside from being a point in establishing that the shopkeeper remembers that he sold it to the kid.
Explain how it matters beyond that when it's established that the kid had a knife just like it, the kid admitted that and the kid said he no longer had said knife because it conveniently fell out of his pocket?
It matters when falsehoods are stated in a court of law.
>I don't even get what the "uniqueness" of the knife matters.
Which is kind of the point, why would the prosecution say it at all? There is no reason to lie about the knife and yet they did which reflects badly on the rest of the prosecutions case because if they're willing to lie about this what else are they lying about? This is one of those things that got OJ off because the police moronicly planted evidence and made the jury question everything.
The fact the kids lawyer didn’t wipe the floor with the prosecution for that is also an indication he lacked qualified representation.
They addressed it in the movie if I'm not mistaken
I can’t remember, we never talk about the kid’s shitty lawyer or lack thereof.
We need to bring back competency tests for voting and jury duty specifically to prevent people like you from participating in these things
You think that innocent until proven guilty and reasonable doubt mean acting like you have a railroad spike sticking out of your skull. Which, to be completely fair, appears to be your normal state of being
You: A unique value satisfying property P exists
Me: Here are two values, not equal to each other, satisfying property P. Therefore your claim is disproven.
You: NOOOOOOO WE NEED TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE LIKE YOU FROM JURIES
Lol, you think trying to use formal logic phases me? I'm a fricking mathematician you dumb chimp. How fricking embarrassing, you're like a child wearing his father's work clothes.
have a nice day
You're a mathematician and you don't understand basic logic. I didn't realize the competency crisis had gotten so bad.
>um ackshually my uneducated Black personbabble on this topic is more knowledgeable
Alright, let's do some problems with sets.
Here's a list of sets with a cardinality of zero:
>the set of women who have told you that they love you
>the set of times your father has told you that he's proud of you
>the set of instances where you said something remotely worth listening to
>the set of days where you made the world better by waking up
>A mathematician would know what formal logic is because they would have been exposed to it graduate school
Incorrect, but thanks for playing. Please reference the above list.
So now you look like an utterly buttblasted moron.
No, but you sure do with this weak punk b***h response kek
Learn from this, I know learning isn't your strong suit, but I believe in ya champ! If you wish hard enough maybe you'll be able to say something not completely moronic
No one is trolled bruh. at most people feel a little sorry for you. Usually these threads last a little longer before you're reduced to feeble attempts at insults.
You are such a homosexual kek, look at you trying to be weasely about it. You have zero confidence, you're not just moronic, you're also not even a man.
Punk homosexual b***h, don't reply to anyone here until you grow a backbone
let me guess, fishtank brought you here.
What part of "don't reply until you grow a backbone" did you find hard to follow?
You could've just said yes. because that's all you did. feel free to have the last word.
I don't really need to say anything, you know as well as anyone that you got blown the frick out, Do yourself a favor and slink away now, you queer
I accept your concession.
>74 seconds apart
They don't make brainlets like they used to, back in the day you tards had the sense to be a little bit trick about samegayging.
Don't even bother with the screenshot, we all know how to inspect element
Another brilliant deduction by math Sherlock Holmes
Are you actually a woman?
Holy seethe
Embarrassing
what a fricking moron
That's not formal logic. That's just logic. A mathematician would know what formal logic is because they would have been exposed to it graduate school.
>This is objectively what you're supposed to do though.
No, it isn't.
Statist*
I'm a researcher and way more "scientists" are failing to realize this too. You're supposed to validate a theory over a competing one by finding something which the competing one has trouble explaining and yours doesn't. Instead, the modern flock of scientists just finds evidence supporting their own theory, even if it also supports a competing one. That information is useless!
Reasonable doubt, not any doubt. You're not allowed to speculate in jury deliberation, anyway: just what's stated.
>The state is allowed to tell you what to think
No.
It’s absolutely shocking how jury nullification has been thoroughly stripped from the public consciousness. Good men on English juries were tortured and imprisoned for not reaching “the correct” verdict as decided by the crown and now we have people bending over backwards to do the prosecutions job. It’s no wonder Chauvin was convicted and frankly it’s a miracle Kenosha Kyle was rightfully acquitted.
Chauvin was convicted because he couldn’t afford a decent lawyer. Rittenhouse was acquitted because the judge wienerblocked the shit out of the prosecution’s attempts to expand the scope of the trial away from the video of rittenhouse on his back, surrounded by people with guns, about to be bludgeoned with a skateboard, before he started shooting.
>surrounded by people with guns
I don't remember that, weren't they just about to beat him up?
I think he was 100% in the right either way btw
You can see at least three dudes with guns in the video, one of the most famous pictures of the “victim” is blood gushing out of his arm, with a gun in his hand.
And yeah, he was acquitted because the prosecution’s case relied upon inventing the concept of premeditated self-defense.
The dude who's bicep he vaporized had a illegal gun in that hand and was seconds away from getting the drop on him
>I don't remember that, weren't they just about to beat him up?
Two people in the crowd had a firearm, the first (the guy with porn videos) fired his into the air while Kyle was running from the pedophile, the second guy was the "medic" that was about to shoot him in the face after a fake surrender.
Crazy
Anyone feel like posting the webm? Not sure if it would be a ban nowadays
Here's the webm of him running towards the police blockade after ventilating the pedo.
Sorry you're gonna have to break this down for absolute morons. Where's the guns that aren't Ritten's? I only noticed a skateboard
I've also never seen the initial part where he's trying to run away, but I'm sure suppressing that was part of the leftie narrative
The first gun is never seen, only heard several minutes before the webm and the guy who gets shot in the bicep at 0:21 has a Glock in his hand.
Well I don't see it in that low-res video
Again though that doesn't mean I disbelieve it. The dude did after all testify that he had a Glock
Just scary how easy it is to frame a video like that as unwarranted aggression
That’s a different video. There were many. Notice how that one avoids getting the guy’s hand in the shot? It’s because it’s clenched around a Glock
Yeah see
I'll shut up about it now cause it's offtopic but I just wanna reiterate I never disbelieved that the other people had guns, was just saying I neither remembered it nor saw it
>this knife isn't unique so you're free to go
Imagine defending this obvious israeli movie that was probably made because that israelite pedophile got lynched and they started sweating and decided to subvert the justice system.
watch
. people are put in jail for even more innocent falsehoods stated in a court of law, and trying to claim the knife was unique was, at best, utter incompetence or malice.
According to bootlickers itt it's a good thing
>This is objectively what you're supposed to do though
No, that's up to the lawyers. You look at the evidence as a juror, and Fonda would have been thrown out for bringing a knife.
It was the 50s, everyone had knives.
he was standing up against a court and a room full of israelites
you know the judge and prosecutor are israeli, and you know the guy going to the ballgame are israeli
but the other 10 men are sneaky so he has to weed them out
I don't know who that is or what this thread is about, but I'm going to say he did it.
If this is 12 angry men then yeah, he definitely did it. moronic movie.
>in the 50s your just was 12 white men with college degrees who actually cared about justice and would spend as long as it takes to be thorough with their judgement
>Now you get 4 stay at home moms that watch CNN all day, 6 random minorities that can barely read, and 2 80 year old grandpas that can barely stay awake during the trial
don't forget
>and the lawyers themselves will, at every point, do everything they can to paint every aspect of the case as dry, disinteresting, and overly complex, so the jury will tune out
11 of those white men were ready to kill the guy without thinking much about what they just heard because it was about to rain
Never said he's not guilty. All he did was point out the flaws in the prosecutions arguments and lack of evidence. The whole movie is only about a reasonable doubt.
Needs a remake with a jury of 12 black men where one will convince the others that the white suspect is guilty and needs to be executed while the other 11 thought he wasn't guilty at first. Directed by Jordan Peele
This doesn't work because prosecutors don't let blacks be on juries
it's a movie
you sure about that?
Literally 8 out of 12 jurors in the OJ case were black
because OJ could afford a lawyer, an exception.
Both sides accepted a disproportionate number of female jurors. From an original jury pool of 40 percent white, 28 percent black, 17 percent Hispanic, and 15 percent Asian, the final jury for the trial had ten women and two men, of whom nine were black, two white, and one Hispanic
I didn't realize this
gee, I wonder how OJ got off Scott free -_-
imagine being the only white male trying to say he's guilty while there's race riots in your city at that very moment
iirc black women hated OJ cause he married a white woman, but the prosecution really fumbled their argument
>oh sorry but the witness couldn't have seen anything because she obviously wears glasses and is farsighted
>I know this because only i noticed at an angle across a room an indent around her nose that could only have come from glasses
glasses that weigh less than a pound and do more than just make you see slightly better is a very recent invention.
Yes, but the jurors also assume she is near-sighted instead of far-sighted, and that she wasn’t wearing her glasses when she witnessed the crime.
Thank God the moron left
>The kid couldn't remember a thing about the movie he claimed to have watched on the night of the murder
>Yeah, but can you remember the exact number of hair follicles in the 3rd billed lead's mustache from the second trailer that played before the movie you saw a month ago?
>Well I-
>GOTCHA
Of all the specious arguments Juror 8 made, the movie one always felt like the weakest, but the guy with the glasses folds immediately like he has no comeback, and then they just move on
>its the movie argument
Theaters were different in the 40s/50s. Movies basically ran on a loop or in a sequence, they never stopped running, with news every so often, sometimes an hour, sometimes half an hour. It was essentially like broadcast television except with only one channel. You bought a ticket, walked into a movie mid-run, stayed as long as you wanted, and left.
Psycho was the first movie were you were not allowed to enter the theater after the movie began.
That wasn't his argument in the movie though. He really does turn around to the guy and go 'do you remember a movie you saw two months ago' and that's treated like it's a reasonable rebuttal to make.
Because it was. People often didn't even go to the movies to watch them, just to sit in air conditioning, or just to be alone.
The weakest one was the reenactment scene to me. They are litteraly substituting evidence and witness testimony for an alternate reality
that's another case of the evidence being based on either falsehood or things that simply weren't possible. They were told the angle of the knife wound and found it was not consistent with testimony.
Damn, and those jurors were expert witnesses on knife wounds and were recognized by the court as such? What a coincidence!
You don't need to be an expert to know if they say the knife wound was downward, then that means the knife had to be held with the blade pointing down.
You also don't need to be taller than the victim to stab down on them like they suggested.
>You're only allowed to know things if the government recognizes you as an expert on knowing things
Pathetic.
>the knife wound
Here's a case where modern knowledge actually helps, instead of hinders. Everyone today knows that if you intend to kill someone with a knife, you're going to stab them dozens of times. The reason is knife wounds don't splurt blood like they do in the movies and people don't just fall the frick over after one. So one knife wound contradicts intentional murder in a heated argument.
My brother in christ, watching CSI does not make you a fricking forensics expert.
What in the god damn frick are you smoking?
Who said it did? I've watched tons of gore videos and "they never stab once" is common knowledge because the news never reports that a murdered person was stabbed just once.
In this situation you're a fricking juror not a witness. This is literally the CSI effect. God you're a fricking idiot
Jurors are allowed to compare information in a case and see if it is consistent. They were told the angle of the knife wound, they know how to hold a knife.
Dude, when a judge gives jury instructions, they quite literally say the exact fricking opposite of that.
Where are you getting this shit from? Did you not take like a civics class or something at some point?
They're told to only consider the evidence presented at trial. They are not told they must never compare evidence presented at trial to other evidence presented at trial.
And now you're going to start screaming about the knife again.
I am going to ask you again.
Where are you getting this bullshit from?
From jury instructions. What do you think "consider" means?
>What do you think "consider" means?
I really think I should be asking you that at this point. I can only conclude from this that you haven't actually had jury duty, and likely are not even old enough to be on one.
This is almost impressive
Please copy/paste american jury instructions.
>consider the evidence put before you
>hmmph silly judge, I’ve watched liveleao videos, I can interpret this and draw my own conclusions
This is literally how you come off. If I was on trial and I found out I had a smug Redditor like you on the jury, I’d catch another charge
consider and interpret are synonyms.
so your argument now is that jurors should just appear from the void and have no knowledge or experience outside of the trial.
>I can interpret this and draw my own conclusions
That is both your birthright and your duty as a rational human being. The entire purpose of a jury is to draw their own conclusion, otherwise the judge would decide guilt.
Its pretty clear that the goal of the movie is subversion. Specifically a liberal/israeli type of subversion where the victim is always blameless and it is the prejudice of society (represented by the jurors) that are at fault. The point is that the non-expert are always prejudicied and should surrender their will to expert who will always have the good rational solution. This is also why all the jurors are presented as having subjective reasons for their guilty verdict.
But to do so the israeli author present to us the msot convoluted magical tales ever made which in itself is indicative of how wrong the basic premise is.
>the victim is always blameless
a not guilty verdict isn't "this man has never committed a crime in his life."
Pilpul
You know what anon meant, in that case.
>resorts to /misc/ buzzwords when confronted
nta but that's not a pol buzzword you moron
yea, it is. its a /misc/ buzzword for "quibble."
Movie was released in 57. At the time any black dude facing trial met a group of people ready to pull the trigger. Only point the movie makes is prejudice will lead to mistakes and the only way to get a true judgement is by considering all the facts. Fonda doesn't say he's innocent just because, he's states why he finds the evidence to be flawed.
This is a gross misunderstanding of racial politics.
You think 13 does 50 is a new thing?
Doesn't mean every black person facing trial is guilty. And if you have any interest on a fair trial you should listen and think about everything that was presented regardless of your personal opinion
Which is what they did in the 50's, with predictable outcomes.
Another thing to consider is how EVERYTHING in the system is wrong by design.
If there is so many copies of that knife, why didnt the defense bring its own copy for example? Did they not, or even the fricking police, called the fricking manufacturer to know how many were made? Same thing with the old man, he is presented as an irrational senile man who cannot really know what reality is.
And again these all align within the context of a fictional piece of work, but the goal of that fiction isnt really entertainment, its subversion and judgment.
>all fiction is subversive!!
so you only watch youtubers and livestreams? maybe some sports?
>He said taht this specific piece of fiction is subversive
>Therefore he said that all fiction is subversive!
>As such he must watch only youtubers and livestreams. Perhaps sportsball.
Or i just didn't see the word "that" before "fiction."
the point of the story is the prosecution/investigators were lazy and expected the jury to be lazy too. the moral is that systemic laziness/corruption relies upon every participant of the system to continue to exist.
Thats the problem, you must accept the premise to begin with. And again its only acceptable for some because the ''System'' was one of muh white supremacy, evil patriarchy or whatever the equivalent was in 57.
For example, would you see liberals doing a reenactment of that piece with an allegorical equivalent of Derk Chauvin or Rittenhouse as the ''victim of the system''? Of course not.
see
The point you're hung up on now is you think a "not guilty" verdict is "INNOCENT OF ALL CRIMES EVER!!" The kid probably did stab his dad. He is probably guilty of second or third degree murder or manslaughter. But that isn't what he was being charged with.
>If there is so many copies of that knife, why didnt the defense bring its own copy for example? Did they not, or even the fricking police, called the fricking manufacturer to know how many were made?
That’s literally addressed in the movie. What blows my mind is that the writer almost certainly intended for the suspect to be innocent if by your admission the film is so subversive, and people still say he’s guilty.
The entire point of the movie is to be brave enough to stand up against the mob if you feel something important is on the line. To be behaving like the characters who are literally written to be wrong is such a joke I can’t believe it.
A: stop making up an imaginary strawman to be the author of the story and attribute motivations to him. this is baby tier thought.
B: the overall point of the movie is the kid probably did stab his dad in a fit of passion. But that isn't first degree murder.
>B: the overall point of the movie is the kid probably did stab his dad in a fit of passion. But that isn't first degree murder.
????
I think you genuinely watched the wrong movie
No, you. Again, the kid is on trial for FIRST DEGREE MURDER. The evidence is not consistent with first degree murder.
You’re a clown bro. Watch the movie again except without moron vision.
I accept your concession.
I hope if you watch it again you remember me and realize you completely missed the plot. I don’t blame you though, it’s a lot of arguing. I can see how it could get confusing.
Yes, that’s what he’s on trial for. Good job.
First degree murder is premeditated. Murder that isn't premeditated is not first degree murder.
... oh god... you've never seen the movie... your knowledge of it comes exclusively from these threads...
>Murder that isn't premeditated is not first degree murder.
That’s not at all what they were arguing about. They were arguing that there’s a chance the kid didn’t do it. This is literally the entire plot of the movie.
Took you a while to find a "source" that doesn't name the specific crime the kid was charged with.
FYI: there is no such thing as a generic "murder" trial. Juries deliver a verdict on specific charges brought against a defendant. The specific charge in 12 angry men was Murder in the First Degree. He can still have stabbed his dad and still be not guilty of first degree murder. The police/prosecution can bring him back to trial for another type of murder or even manslaughter.
Manslaughter and murder in the 2nd are lesser included offenses of murder in the 1st, so he'd be protected by double jeopardy rules. Otherwise the state would be incentivized to just hit everyone with a murder in the first charge and then step the charge down at different trials until they got a conviction.
you are not a lawyer.
I'm a mathematician.
that doesn't understand basic logic
actually what they do in murder trials is charge everything they can conceivably charge, and then leave it to the jury. 12 angry men is based on a situation that may or may not have happened, where they charged a kid guilty of manslaughter, at best, and exclusively charged him with first degree murder. because they were lazy.
>where they charged a kid guilty of manslaughter, at best,
second degree, surely?
one stab wound means unintentional, they probably grappled and the dad fell on the knife, then the kid ran.
>one stab wound means unintentional, they probably grappled and the dad fell on the knife, then the kid ran.
completely hypothetical.
How would you feel if you were on trial?
I would feel like a Black person.
Wrong, Black folk always plea bargain.
>Took you a while to find a "source" that doesn't name the specific crime the kid was charged with.
??? That’s the fricking Wikipedia page for the movie
>He can still have stabbed his dad and still be not guilty of first degree murder.
The arguments presented were that there’s a chance he didn’t stab his father. What the frick do you think he brought the other knife in for? Am I being trolled? Is this an old Cinemaphile meme where anon plays the part of the 11 other jurors and make someone recreate the movie? Is this all a ruse?
>movie is about a kid on trial for first degree murder
>the jurors decide he isn't guilty of first degree murder based upon the evidence not adding up
I'm meeting you halfway here bro. Maybe the kid did stab his father in the middle of an argument, but that isn't first degree murder.
They did a great job on depicting the different personalities that would lead to wrong judgement. The lazy one, the guy that made up his mind the second he saw the defendant, the one that basically just wants to feel in power for a minute, that wants to be the one to impart justice by his own hand
All this people exist in real life. By the billions
And my point is that the psychological aspect of the piece is only a mean to an end.
If the movie really was about exploring those character, it would have been better served by having all the event leading up to the point where they have to deliberate going smoothly and normally, the only thing left being each of the jurors' personal biases towards the victim.
Instead, these biases are simply a part of a greater whole where the entire system ''conspired'' (either directly or indirectly) against the victim, and the only one who could see trough all of this being one guy. The only conclusion from all of this is that the goal was subversion, everything else being subject to that end, and specifically a liberal/israeli type of subversion where the victim or the person in position of inferiority is blameless in its predicament.
He's not blameless, he wasn't found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
Within the limit imposed by the fiction, the system wanted to charge the guy with first degree murder, the system came to that conclusion because it was biased and critically flawed because of said biases. The sytem was wrong. Everything else is technicalities (the degree of murder etc...) and not worth consideration in this discution because its not about said technicalities.
Its a slightly more sophisticated version of ''He dindu nothin'' exept that the premises you must accept to get to that conclusion are baffling to any rational person, because the author was more preocupied by the subversion aspect of it than by the story/psychological aspect of its fictional creation.
Again if the system would have worked correctly and all that was left were the personal biases of the juror nobody would care. But we are forced to accept critical failure at every level of this trial up to absurdity.
And then we are moralised on our biases (including believing in the system) trough a slopily written story.
I found the center of the story to be: jury duty is a serious business and you should take it as such. If after deliberation you find reasonable doubt holds up sentencing a guy to death is an irresponsibility. A fatal one. Nothing subversive about it. It's a system that's been present for thousands of years.
>Nothing subversive about it
This. The scenes where they go "uhm actually immigrants are based hard workers" and "oh my god sir are you racist? we will shun your strawman like a le epic theater production" were needed to show that jury duty is a serious business and had no agenda behind them
That’s more about how that type of galvanized racism requires the complete absence of all other types of thought.
Yeah i found the part where they all cringed at the old dude to be both funny and too much I'll give you that. You have to place yourself in the time of the film though. It was basically a new and different thought to even consider a black man worthy of judgement.
Take the race aspect off the movie, make it a white boy that got accused and the center or the story is the same
> It was basically a new and different thought to even consider a black man worthy of judgement.
This isn’t true at all. Black people had been considered free men in most of the US since the the 1700s
You’re projecting propaganda as truth
Yikes... have you ever read a public school textbook ever? All black people were forced to live in the woods and in caves until MLK Jr was resurrected and overthrew the Sith Empire and made everything right again.
Then two yt ppo were kept alive on the Ark that Bernie Sanders built and now we have raycism again.
Redditor
Not really
I hate to break it to you dude, but this “color blind republic” shit has been tried for the past 200 years and it just doesn’t work
Blacks do not act like white people and have a very different sense of what’s right. Trying to get along with black people and treating them like whites wasn't invented in the 1960s
It was. Lynching crowds existed past the 60's
"Lynching crowds" never existed in the first place. It was always a Left Wing hypothetical.
The pedophile the ADL was formed to protect was literally lynched by vigilantes.
Stop falling for the trap of denying facts simply because you don’t like the type of people who say them.
>this “color blind republic” shit has been tried for the past 200 years and it just doesn’t work
The US had codified racial slavery for 40 of those 200 years.
The point is everyone has aspects of every juror in different degrees. Everyone doubts, everyone has biases/superstitions, everyone is lazy sometimes, and everyone has the capacity for reasoned thought. Each of the characters are one note to explore the interactions between aspects of self.
When they teach this movie in middle school, the teacher will always ask “who’s the ideal juror?” Everyone immediately says Fonda, and often students need to be reminded the Vulcan exists
The point of the movie is to cry for muh criminal scumbag he a good boy he dindu nuffin. I don't give a shit if the hack writer thinks the criminal is innocent or about his shit caricatures of the decent jury members who would have shipped his ass to jail.
Yeah, guys like you are the vast majority of jury members. That's why reasonable people is needed too
Kek
>Cry for muh criminal scumbag he a good boy he dindu nuffin
Could be a line in the movie if you took out the “muh”
There's nothing worse or more dangerous than someone like you who thinks your moronic beliefs are reasonable
I’ll add that it’s a very specifically racially oriented attack angle of casting doubt on established fact and trying to develop fear, uncertainty and doubt into a group
If the host demographic were making this film it would be about establishing a more credible story and establishing trust in contrast to undermining evidence, which can be done infinitely regarding anything (critical theory)
Yeah but the not guilty verdict hinges on a magical fairyland tales where after the argument someone entered the room killed the guy with the same knife and disapeared without anybody noticing and did so for not apparent motive at all.
What you're not understanding now is first degree murder requires very specific criteria. Premeditation, no passion. If they were fighting and he stabbed his dad once and ran away, that's a crime of passion, and a completely different crime.
This is why we say guilty and not guilty, because the point isn't to say "this person committed no crime, ever," the point is to say "this person is not guilty of this specific crime."
They can definitely charge the kid with manslaughter and go back to trial, and that's an open and shut case.
If I was in the jury and the alleged perpetrator was black, I would've voted guilty every single time. Even if the rest of the jury would gang up on me, I would still vote him guilty. Even if Jesus Christ would come down from heaven and testify the kids innocence, I would still vote guilty.
Btw I'm not racist, I just don't love them
childhood is thinking he was innocent and it was right to defend him
adulthood is thinking he was likely guilty and it was still right to defend him
childhood is thinking in binaries.
Only the Sith think in binaries.
>binaries are for children
Oh, where is the "sorta guilty" option? Or perhaps the "medium-low guilty" option?
It’s in all the different criminal statues dealing with wrongful death.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt means that if you have any reasonable doubt at all, you must acquit. This is wht autistic people are automatically excluded from the jury pool
>verfication not required
>Umm sweety you have to let the obvious murderer go free and roam your neighborhood because this israeli movie says so!
Can't imagine who was behind this tripe being shown in public schools for decades!
Say what you will about him, but Fonda plays great villains. 12 Angry Men, Once Upon a Time in the West, neither would be as good without Fonda.
Yes? That’s the whole fricking point of a jury
Jesus Christ
No, the point of a jury is to be judged by your peers, read, normal people. Not disconnected wealthy academics, not royalty with no life experience, not robots. The only thing jurors are instructed to not consider is information specifically about the case, not presented at trial.
I am getting really fricking tired of entertaining your shit.
Do you disagree with juries being sequestered or screened in regard to bias on the case?
Maybe we should call the hairdresser who knows all the town gossip, she probably can consider the evidence a lot better than anyone there!
You are a drooling moron, stop pretending to know anything about this topic
Anon. At no point are jurors expected to be complete innocents pulled from the void, who's sole knowledge of the universe is whats presented at trial.
I am curious as to where you got this idea.
>The prosecution's job is to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the killer
>fails to do so
>WHAT THE FRICK WHY WON'T THE JURY DECIDE TO KILL THE GUY THIS IS AN OUTRAGE
>illegally introduces new evidence in the jury room
>is hung up on what consider means
>plays fast and loose with the definition of evidence
>it's an object being used to persuade members of the jury on the facts of the case
>which is NOT evidence, chud
correct. Its only evidence if its entered as evidence during the trial.
>if I slowly shuffle around the room, that proves that the witness is lying
Garbage movie written for programming smooth brains
>ITT: Fatherless behavior
what a cutie. Imagine you put a penis in her nose and shoot a load
>Get out of jury duty with this one simple trick that prosecutors hate!
12 Angry Men is a 1957 American legal drama film directed by Sidney Lumet, adapted from a 1954 teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose.[6][7]
>Lumet made his professional debut on the radio at age four and his stage debut at the Yiddish Art Theatre at age five.
>Reginald Rose: Trivia - He was the son of Alice (Obendorfer) and William Rose. He was of German israeli descent.
Anyone else just pictured the guy who was being judged as black? I even remembered the movie as in it showing that the guy was black LOL.
Really moron?
>it's possible that the death threat was figurative speech
>it's possible that the disabled witness couldn't have made it to the door in time
>it's possible that the murdered was taller than the boy, since the stab wound angled downwards
>it's possible that the boy's inability to recall specific details is normal, since a lot of people are like that
>it's possible that the witness, who was trying to sleep when she saw the killing, would not have had glasses on or the time to put them on, making her story questionable
>it's possible that the real murderer purchased a switchblade of the same type that was found
Juror 8 was right about everything. The boy had to go free.
There is no way you can guess that she required glasses at all to see or that she is short sighter and needed them to see at a distance. J8 was grasping at something only he saw and made a flying mental leap to justify an indent on a woman's face at an angle from several feet away.
Yeah that's the only problem I really have with what he talked about.
Maybe she's far sighted and then it would be possible.
Glasses weighing less than a pound or being effective is a recent invention. They fricked your face and everyone could tell you needed them if you wore them regularly.
>Glasses weighing
And you know for a fact that she is near sighted and need these heavy glasses to see that far out and I guess you also know her level of vision as well? You have nothing you have less than nothing since you are making these claims and cross examinations of the witness without the actual witness to clarify
Thanks for going into how the defense lawyer sucked.
>And you know for a fact that she is near sighted and need these heavy glasses to see that far out and I guess you also know her level of vision as well? You have nothing you have less than nothing since you are making these claims and cross examinations of the witness without the actual witness to clarify
>Said juror #4 angrily
All of that is just too unlikely to be coincidence. I bet it was the local klan framing him.
All of that coincidentally happening together isn't very probable.
Thought they weren’t allowed to compare evidence bruh
I'm just saying it's possible!
>who was trying to sleep when she saw the killing, would not have had glasses on or the time to put them on
I need to rewatch this anyway, but anyone got that scene? I can't remember what exactly he claimed
All I know is that even without my glasses I would definitely be able to see it if someone across the street got murdered
>All I know is that even without my glasses I would definitely be able to see it if someone across the street got murdered
Without my lenses I can’t tell who’s five feet in front of me
>old man projects feelings of insecurity on one witness and somehow just recalls other key witness had eyeglass dimples calling into question her "eyesight"
What a crock of shit
The movie and play make a lot more sense when you realize Juror 8 was just a bored master ruseman
I like these threads because it's just shitposters going "y-yeah but he clearly did it!" when the entire premise of the movie is that all evidence we hear about can be easily put into question
If anything, you should point out that jurors aren't allowed to start their own private investigations and he should get thrown out
Jurors are allowed to bring their biases and experience into a trial.
Mate he went out to buy a similar kind of knife
Because he automatically doubted the claim the knife was unique, and proved that doubt was reasonable, “mate.”
It’s funny to think aussies are the ones enraged by this movie. That place is a fricking police state.
Goddamn man I knew you were gonna go that route, I fricking hate that way of arguing so this will be my last response to you
I said independent investigations will get him thrown off. Basically what this guy said too
You said "he didn't do any investigation!"
I gave you an example of one he did. You then started to get emotionally charged and throwing "SO WHAT HE ONLY DID IT BECAUSE HE HAD DOUBTS" at me
I proved to you that a mistrial should have been called. Now frick off
You’re the one who seems emotional “mate.”
>I proved to you that a mistrial should have been called.
Yeah well they didn’t because they weren’t little tattletales and knew he proved his point about the knife not being one of a kind.
Sure the jurors could deliberate all you want l, but doing "experiments" where J8 shuffles across the floor as slowly as possible would immediately result in a mistral being called.
>what if he actually died of a heart attack and there was no knife involved at all? we don't have the coroner here to counter that claim so I'll just say it's 100% undoubtably true 🙂
See
>THE WOMAN WAS PROBABLY BLIND SHE DIDN'T SEE SHIT LOL SHE'S JUST LYING FOR ATTENTION is a reasonable doubt
>she looks like she needs glasses from the marks left on her face due to how heavy glasses are because it’s 1950
>glasses suck because it’s 1950
This is you confusing modern optics for the dogshit of the 1950s
>This is you confusing modern optics for the dogshit of the 1950s
Yeah bro the 50s truly were the dark ages.
You have now displayed an inability to map anything between hand grinding lenses and current year.
Juries are a fricking awful way of distributing justice.
Not everything needs to be democratized.
Cop here, cops are the absolute worst judges of anything ever.
That's why we have career judges.
And why their careers end if they ever show bias.
They're pretty good in 100+ IQ societies with low clannish behavior. Obviously becoming untenable in most of the west now.
>Acting coach is a gay Arab
>Decides to direct 12 angry men production
>Refuses to cast PoC's and woman
>mfw
I don't know how this thread got diverted into rittenchad but I'm excited for it
The better question is how did all these pedophiles end up at a protest where the goal was to hand a kid a gun and get him to defend himself.
What a kino movie, I don't give a frick if it's not accurate since that's exactly what makes it good. Sociopaths wouldn't understand.
Fortunately there are more ways to prove someone is guilty than there were back in the '50s but the film seems to confuse "any doubt" with "reasonable doubt" as too many people do.
Any doubt is reasonable doubt when someone's life is on the line, you sicko.
>Any doubt is reasonable doubt
Objectively wrong. No one would ever be convicted ever.
Only if you don’t know what doubt means.
*reasonable doubt
A reasonable doubt is a doubt that can be corrected by simple facts or logic.
>72 angry contrarians
Contrarianism is a concept invented by redditors to explain why everyone doesn’t like, dislike, and think the same things.
i remember watching this at 11 years old in history class.
thought he was incredibly based.
>entire movie is extremely straight forward about how moronic americans will lynch innocent people for no reason because they are impatient selfish sociopaths and will kill anyone in their way if it means they miss their commercial baseball game
>90 years later moronic mutt descendants of the same americans you parody go online and think they sound smart because they found Cinemaphile online and gave themselves brain damage
>he wasn't white the system made him do it!
>*looks directly at the camera
>bow to none whites, Goyim! BOW AND GIVE YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR PEOPLE'S FUTURE UP FOR THEM!
I clapped
>polmutt schizo ESL tries to fit in
embarrassing lmao
Using "simple facts and logic," you have to look at the accumulation of evidence:
Is it possible the boy just happened to say he was going to kill his dad before someone else did?
Sure.
Is it possible he just happened to buy the same type of knife used to kill his dad right before the murder?
Sure.
Is it possible he just happened to lose the knife right as the murder was taking place?
Sure.
Is it possible he went to the movies and somehow could not name a single thing about them and nobody saw him at the theatre?
Sure.
Is it possible the eyewitness across the street was wrong?
Sure.
Is it possible the eyewitness upstairs was wrong?
Sure.
Is it probable all of these things are just coincidences and the universe is conspiring to frame this kid?
No.
It is funny that you are not supposed to make value-judgments about the accused but they are willing to believe the old man upstairs just decided to condemn a boy to death because he wanted to feel important.
Also what was the motive for someone else killing the dad? If something was missing from the apartment it seems like it would have been brought up.
The movie is still entertaining -- you do not even have to agree with their verdict or conclusions.
Is it possible he was only charged with first degree murder and the eyewitness testimony and physical did not indicate a cold blooded premeditated murder?
>This schizo again
You already got BTFO last time you tried this. Sure you want to humiliate yourslef in round 2?
Anon. The movie is about jury deliberations during a trial for first degree murder. There is no such thing as a “generic” murder trial. Today, a person suspected of first degree murder will also be charged with second, third, and a flavor or manslaughter.
And no, you did not refute this assertion, you showed ignorance of law.
Is it possible he didn’t do it?
Sure
End of story. Literally.
adulthood is realizing this is a israelite grifter flick and serves no purpose to anyone who is not an amerimutt golem
right, because in the rest of the world guilt is determined by the dictator for life.
Hollywood has always been in favor of advantaging criminals.
Leftists you literally either pretend the firey but mostly peaceful riots didn't happen or they did happen and were good and demonized Kyle Rittenhouse alongside the Democrats, MSM, and left at large because you're all on the same side
You have no foot to stand on trying to deflect
>randomly starts ranting about people living in his head
For me it was all the proclamations that gathering for riots prevented zero risk of transmission for corona, right on the backs of their insane bullshit behavior. What a time.
I hate the australian state body, almost as much as I hate my own
there are only a few other government populations which I hate near as much
it boggles the mind, how extremely cucked the australians are
viper thread?
The killer is out there and could strike again, anywhere, any time.