>I can see you're all the type of people that play video games a lot
I've seen this kind of thing said multiple times now. Is there some podcast/streamer moron you're following that's popularizing this?
>old man couldn't have made it to the door in time, plus reason to lie >old woman wasn't wearing glasses at night and you can't see or hear well enough through a passing el-train to identify people or what they were saying >the weapon wasn't unique, but common and cheap >the kid had a solid alibi (who remembers every movie they saw?) >the defense attorney was so shit, that was reason enough for a mistrial >the prosecution had circumstantial evidence and hearsay, there was no physical evidence against the boy (no blood on him or the supposed murder weapon) >the stabbing was done by someone taller, because of the trajectory of the knife wound
The thing is, not all of these have to make sense, but ONE is enough, hence why they say "beyond A reasonable doubt" not "beyond a series of reasonable doubts".
>kid had a solid alibi
For a second I thought I was gonna have to do a point-by-point refutation of your post but now I see you’re just baiting. 3/10, made me reply
he had a ticket stub from the movie theatre. he also came back home after the movies, why would he do that if he had just killed his father hours before?
and again, no blood on the boy was found.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, even Henry Fonda tells you the defendant doesn't have to say anything, it's all on the prosecution and they didn't make a good case. the 12 jurors were ready to convict him based on prejudice, not facts.
>he had a ticket stub
It’s been a while since I’ve seen it but I’m almost positive that this isn’t true. Post the timestamp in the movie where anyone says he had a stub.
so all I have to do is hire an incompetent attorney and I am automatically entitled to a mistrial even if it's obvious I did (like he obviously did it in the film)? and I can just keep doing that until the prosecution is sick of trying to nail me?? the system works!
When you're poor, you're assigned a lawyer by the State. No wonder this movie went over your head, you don't know the basics behind a court process.
Sidney Lumet assumed a basic level of civic literacy when making the film. That's why there's no idiot side-kick audience stand-in to whom everything has to be explained in simple terms.
its the obsessiveness that has become a problem, autism epidemic or something.
>old man couldn't have made it to the door in time, plus reason to lie >old woman wasn't wearing glasses at night and you can't see or hear well enough through a passing el-train to identify people or what they were saying >the weapon wasn't unique, but common and cheap >the kid had a solid alibi (who remembers every movie they saw?) >the defense attorney was so shit, that was reason enough for a mistrial >the prosecution had circumstantial evidence and hearsay, there was no physical evidence against the boy (no blood on him or the supposed murder weapon) >the stabbing was done by someone taller, because of the trajectory of the knife wound
The thing is, not all of these have to make sense, but ONE is enough, hence why they say "beyond A reasonable doubt" not "beyond a series of reasonable doubts".
When you're poor, you're assigned a lawyer by the State. No wonder this movie went over your head, you don't know the basics behind a court process.
Sidney Lumet assumed a basic level of civic literacy when making the film. That's why there's no idiot side-kick audience stand-in to whom everything has to be explained in simple terms.
Only a child could watch 12 angry men and think it said anything meaningful.
Watch on the waterfront it'll blow your underdeveloped mine clean off your shoulders sweetheart.
>Black person Hispanic kills his dad in a fit of aztec bloodlust >white liberal cobbles together an incredibly implausible explanation as to how you can't be 100% sure he did it
many such cases
this film is highly fallacious because it conflates not being absolutely certain (we are certain of essentially nothing, read hume) with a reasonable doubt. the doubts that Fonda raises are completely unreasonable and they should've send that little spicnig to be fried on the chair
DA fricked up even giving the jury access to lousy witnesses, cops did bad work following knife. A weaker case presented better would have probably worked.
I agree, but most rich frickers make their money through illegal and/or immoral ways. So they should get fricked as much as possible. Would you really take some Wall Street israelite investor and vote not guilty on tax fraud charges?
>but most rich frickers make their money through illegal and/or immoral ways
Most rich people are just salesmen and business owners. You only see George Soros but look right past the plumbing business owners
Plumbers are trying to scam their customers, just like a car repair shop does. All successful businesses get that way by fricking over or scamming their customers.
>Its rent
No. It's money that is taken from you through threats and coercion and is almost never returned to you in the form of benefits. It is rather wasted on useless bloodsucking government workers and agencies and on the leeches of society through benefits
>no fingerprints on the knife >no victim's blood on the kid despite being arrested almost immediately
That would be enough for me. No material evidence linking the kid to the crime in a case with victim's body and murder weapon being immediately retrieved and suspect immediately arrested raises reasonable doubt that they've got the wrong person. It would take more than one or two eyeball witnesses of debatable quality to convict someone of murder.
its clear hollywood should re-make this movie with some woke angle. Like a black boy accused of rape in some all white town in vermont because only white people need to be lectured not to be racist.
The rules of drama called for something to be introduced in ACT3 to finally sway the jury even though that's expressly prohibited. Rules of Drama > Rules of Evidence.
FYI this was first done as a TV teleplay in 1954. Then it was on stage and adapted to a film.
>back in the 50s you'd have 12 white, well-meaning jurors who actually gave a shit about the outcome of the case they were assigned >Now you get 6 illiterate roody-poos, two white women that watch CNN all day, one retired boomer who just wants to go home, and 3 mystery meat teens that are probably high as a kite during the trial
As a selected juror I can vote however I want, kiss my ass you bleeding heart dopes.
#10 energy
The juror with the glasses was unironically the best juror.
>Did you just heckin' say a nonwhite should be le punished for murder!?
Pozzed goyslop for boomer libtards.
Lot of israelites in that picture. Ooch.
worse, AYE TALIANS
If they the defendant wasn't guilty they never would have been arrested and placed on trial.
bruh
people that think like that vote
this is why america is doomed
None of their doubts were reasonable. Suspect was obviously guilty and only a handful of reddltors fall for this movie's bs
>babbys first civics lesson
>Cinemaphile completely bewildered by it
I can see you're all the type of people that play video games a lot
do the zoomers even get social studies classes these days?
Race obsession poisons the mind for many here
its the obsessiveness that has become a problem, autism epidemic or something.
>I can see you're all the type of people that play video games a lot
I've seen this kind of thing said multiple times now. Is there some podcast/streamer moron you're following that's popularizing this?
Is mischaracterizing the concept of reasonable doubt an important civics lesson to leftoids?
>old man couldn't have made it to the door in time, plus reason to lie
>old woman wasn't wearing glasses at night and you can't see or hear well enough through a passing el-train to identify people or what they were saying
>the weapon wasn't unique, but common and cheap
>the kid had a solid alibi (who remembers every movie they saw?)
>the defense attorney was so shit, that was reason enough for a mistrial
>the prosecution had circumstantial evidence and hearsay, there was no physical evidence against the boy (no blood on him or the supposed murder weapon)
>the stabbing was done by someone taller, because of the trajectory of the knife wound
The thing is, not all of these have to make sense, but ONE is enough, hence why they say "beyond A reasonable doubt" not "beyond a series of reasonable doubts".
>kid had a solid alibi
For a second I thought I was gonna have to do a point-by-point refutation of your post but now I see you’re just baiting. 3/10, made me reply
he had a ticket stub from the movie theatre. he also came back home after the movies, why would he do that if he had just killed his father hours before?
and again, no blood on the boy was found.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, even Henry Fonda tells you the defendant doesn't have to say anything, it's all on the prosecution and they didn't make a good case. the 12 jurors were ready to convict him based on prejudice, not facts.
>he had a ticket stub
It’s been a while since I’ve seen it but I’m almost positive that this isn’t true. Post the timestamp in the movie where anyone says he had a stub.
My bad, he didn't have a ticket stub.
so all I have to do is hire an incompetent attorney and I am automatically entitled to a mistrial even if it's obvious I did (like he obviously did it in the film)? and I can just keep doing that until the prosecution is sick of trying to nail me?? the system works!
When you're poor, you're assigned a lawyer by the State. No wonder this movie went over your head, you don't know the basics behind a court process.
Sidney Lumet assumed a basic level of civic literacy when making the film. That's why there's no idiot side-kick audience stand-in to whom everything has to be explained in simple terms.
A bad attorney is grounds for an appeal, not a mistrial, and it's up to the "misrepresented" to make that case, not a jury.
Only a child could watch 12 angry men and think it said anything meaningful.
Watch on the waterfront it'll blow your underdeveloped mine clean off your shoulders sweetheart.
>Black person Hispanic kills his dad in a fit of aztec bloodlust
>white liberal cobbles together an incredibly implausible explanation as to how you can't be 100% sure he did it
many such cases
this film is highly fallacious because it conflates not being absolutely certain (we are certain of essentially nothing, read hume) with a reasonable doubt. the doubts that Fonda raises are completely unreasonable and they should've send that little spicnig to be fried on the chair
DA fricked up even giving the jury access to lousy witnesses, cops did bad work following knife. A weaker case presented better would have probably worked.
>we are certain of essentially nothing
Are you certain?
The directors cut ending where the kid stabs henry fonda after he got him off was pretty dark.
Better 10 innocent men are shot in the back of the head than 1 guilty man goes free.
I hope someday I'm on the jury for someone who committed tax fraud so I can say not guilty.
well if you say that here they'll have those Cinemaphile logs in court and disqualify you. that is what is known as a jury nullification.
Depends who did it. Some rich motherfricker? Guilty as frick. Regular citizen? Jury nullification that shit.
Incorrect, all taxation is theft
I agree, but most rich frickers make their money through illegal and/or immoral ways. So they should get fricked as much as possible. Would you really take some Wall Street israelite investor and vote not guilty on tax fraud charges?
>but most rich frickers make their money through illegal and/or immoral ways
Most rich people are just salesmen and business owners. You only see George Soros but look right past the plumbing business owners
Plumbers are trying to scam their customers, just like a car repair shop does. All successful businesses get that way by fricking over or scamming their customers.
No it isn't. Its rent.
>Its rent
No. It's money that is taken from you through threats and coercion and is almost never returned to you in the form of benefits. It is rather wasted on useless bloodsucking government workers and agencies and on the leeches of society through benefits
ebin
>no fingerprints on the knife
>no victim's blood on the kid despite being arrested almost immediately
That would be enough for me. No material evidence linking the kid to the crime in a case with victim's body and murder weapon being immediately retrieved and suspect immediately arrested raises reasonable doubt that they've got the wrong person. It would take more than one or two eyeball witnesses of debatable quality to convict someone of murder.
Nothing in this movie matters as the jurors broke several rules and therefore a mistrial would have been declared.
>this ragebait thread again
yawn
its clear hollywood should re-make this movie with some woke angle. Like a black boy accused of rape in some all white town in vermont because only white people need to be lectured not to be racist.
>To Kill a Mockingbird
>Mississippi on Fire
>Alabama Burning
you need to watch more movies
Your honor. Can you prove that the universe did not spontaneously appear just now, complete with false memories? You see, there is reasonable doubt
theres one missing
>misses the point of the OP just like he missed the point of the movie
P O T T E R Y
>juror goes out and does his own research, introducing new evidence into the case
>not immediately dismissed and replaced
Shit flick
The rules of drama called for something to be introduced in ACT3 to finally sway the jury even though that's expressly prohibited. Rules of Drama > Rules of Evidence.
FYI this was first done as a TV teleplay in 1954. Then it was on stage and adapted to a film.
?si=qqlQzbb3V_yy_vrt
>back in the 50s you'd have 12 white, well-meaning jurors who actually gave a shit about the outcome of the case they were assigned
>Now you get 6 illiterate roody-poos, two white women that watch CNN all day, one retired boomer who just wants to go home, and 3 mystery meat teens that are probably high as a kite during the trial