I used to think this movie was good, but eventually I started to resent the main character defending some brownie kid who did quite frankly kill their victim
>Murder weapon was a rare type of knife that he was known to have >Was heard fighting with his father and shouting "I'll kill you" earlier that night >No witnesses for his alibi that he was at the movies, and he couldn't say which movie he supposedly saw when he was arrested >Was known to be "troubled", meaning he had a low character
>>No witnesses for his alibi that he was at the movies, and he couldn't say which movie he supposedly saw when he was arrested
This is a big one. >So you were watching a movie? >Yes. >Do you remember the title? >No >Do you remember the story? >No >Do you remember any of the actors and actresses in it? >No >Do you remember anything about the movie at all? >No >Why? >I was so shocked about my daddy's murder that I lost all memory of the movie.
weapon was a rare type of knife that he was known to have
What about the identical knife the juror had bought? >>Was heard fighting with his father and shouting "I'll kill you" earlier that night
You could convict every teenager in the world if this was enough. >>No witnesses for his alibi that he was at the movies,
How would he have a witness? Do you take note of everyone else in the movie theater when you go? >and he couldn't say which movie he supposedly saw when he was arrested
Not conclusive enough evidence to condemn a man to death on. People forget things all the time. >Was known to be "troubled", meaning he had a low character
Sounds like prejudice to me.
>What about the identical knife the juror had bought?
Jury misconduct, mistrial
Seen by two witnesses to commit the murder, reasoning to dismiss them is specious at best, definitely not reasonable doubt.
The Defense not asking obvious questions is reason enough to say "lmao no" in terms of producting a guilty verdict.
The Jury is allowed to question the validity of the process of the actual evidence (including witnesses) being reviewed by either party.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Ah, a new powerful defence for an obviously guilty suspect is not to put up a defence at all! Such a improper trial must be invalid, they should walk free.
The jury is not allowed to question witness testimony with made up hypotheticals - "she wore glasses, therefore she could not see"
>What about the identical knife the juror had bought?
Still an exceptionally rare knife >You could convict every teenager in the world if this was enough.
Shouting "I'll kill you" is not normal, and it has extra significance when the person they say it to is murdered. >Not conclusive enough evidence to condemn a man to death on. People forget things all the time.
Not on its own, but all these things added together make it hard to believe anything other than that the boy is guilty >Sounds like prejudice to me.
Judging someone's character is necessary. If a well-behaved boy from a good suburban home had been accused, we would have a different story.
If you already read what I linked, you would have the answer already. It's amazing, you have no only a law review paper written about it, that would give you all the shit the jury did wrong, but also the internet as a whole. You have all the tools available to educate yourself and yet you don't. Congrats, you're moronic.
bringing the knife he found into the jury room was introduction of new evidence, which isn't allowed. Though he could have mentioned that he'd seen similar knives and he didn't believe this one was unique.
>introduction of new evidence
lol no. He would have had to go through a bunch of procedures to introduce new evidence. This was just him showing the jury a reason why the kid didn’t do it.
So my understanding is that if the kid was white it would have been triumph of the civil society but because the kid is a Black person, it's israeli psyop libtard slop and the reason for declining birthrates and the end of western civilization.
why didn't they just calm down instead of seething like some moron on the internet?
I used to think this movie was good, but eventually I started to resent the main character defending some brownie kid who did quite frankly kill their victim
It's all social fricking programming I swear
>who did quite frankly kill their victim
Prove it.
>Murder weapon was a rare type of knife that he was known to have
>Was heard fighting with his father and shouting "I'll kill you" earlier that night
>No witnesses for his alibi that he was at the movies, and he couldn't say which movie he supposedly saw when he was arrested
>Was known to be "troubled", meaning he had a low character
>>No witnesses for his alibi that he was at the movies, and he couldn't say which movie he supposedly saw when he was arrested
This is a big one.
>So you were watching a movie?
>Yes.
>Do you remember the title?
>No
>Do you remember the story?
>No
>Do you remember any of the actors and actresses in it?
>No
>Do you remember anything about the movie at all?
>No
>Why?
>I was so shocked about my daddy's murder that I lost all memory of the movie.
weapon was a rare type of knife that he was known to have
What about the identical knife the juror had bought?
>>Was heard fighting with his father and shouting "I'll kill you" earlier that night
You could convict every teenager in the world if this was enough.
>>No witnesses for his alibi that he was at the movies,
How would he have a witness? Do you take note of everyone else in the movie theater when you go?
>and he couldn't say which movie he supposedly saw when he was arrested
Not conclusive enough evidence to condemn a man to death on. People forget things all the time.
>Was known to be "troubled", meaning he had a low character
Sounds like prejudice to me.
>What about the identical knife the juror had bought?
Jury misconduct, mistrial
Seen by two witnesses to commit the murder, reasoning to dismiss them is specious at best, definitely not reasonable doubt.
The Defense not asking obvious questions is reason enough to say "lmao no" in terms of producting a guilty verdict.
The Jury is allowed to question the validity of the process of the actual evidence (including witnesses) being reviewed by either party.
Ah, a new powerful defence for an obviously guilty suspect is not to put up a defence at all! Such a improper trial must be invalid, they should walk free.
The jury is not allowed to question witness testimony with made up hypotheticals - "she wore glasses, therefore she could not see"
>What about the identical knife the juror had bought?
Still an exceptionally rare knife
>You could convict every teenager in the world if this was enough.
Shouting "I'll kill you" is not normal, and it has extra significance when the person they say it to is murdered.
>Not conclusive enough evidence to condemn a man to death on. People forget things all the time.
Not on its own, but all these things added together make it hard to believe anything other than that the boy is guilty
>Sounds like prejudice to me.
Judging someone's character is necessary. If a well-behaved boy from a good suburban home had been accused, we would have a different story.
why are you trying to argue about an american movie, dealing with american law, when you don't even speak the language natively?
>brings up racial statistics
>OJ Simpson's Trial: The Movie
Maybe on planet moron
I like the movie, but holy shit is it extremely overrated. I'd give it a 5.5-6/10. Read the following for why the Jury fricked up and broke the law.
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3598&context=cklawreview
>NOOOOOOO YOU'RE BREAKING THE HECKING LAW SAMIR
who cares, kids innocent
>doesn't care when a jury breaks the law
Congrats, you are a full-blown moron that doesn't care about the integrity of the judicial and trial system.
How exactly did he break the law? Common knowledge is allowed in deliberations, and there’s no way to prove he didn’t know the knife wasn’t unique
Literally don't be a moron and read what I linked to.
How about you read what I said first?
If you already read what I linked, you would have the answer already. It's amazing, you have no only a law review paper written about it, that would give you all the shit the jury did wrong, but also the internet as a whole. You have all the tools available to educate yourself and yet you don't. Congrats, you're moronic.
You must hate your son.
bringing the knife he found into the jury room was introduction of new evidence, which isn't allowed. Though he could have mentioned that he'd seen similar knives and he didn't believe this one was unique.
>introduction of new evidence
lol no. He would have had to go through a bunch of procedures to introduce new evidence. This was just him showing the jury a reason why the kid didn’t do it.
>Le wop is innocent because of all these "coincidences" that happened
0/10
So my understanding is that if the kid was white it would have been triumph of the civil society but because the kid is a Black person, it's israeli psyop libtard slop and the reason for declining birthrates and the end of western civilization.
Wouldn't happen at that time. White people were a lot more racist back then, and open about it.
12 Angry Men was a cancelled Twilight Zone episode
Anyone that has ever sat in a court as a jury should be killed.
>Powerful
No, I like the film but Fonda would have been thrown out of the jury immediately.
For what? Doing his job?
I've watched it once 10 years ago and I still can name every character off the top of my head