What was his problem?

Why didn't he just say "guilty"?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    being a chud wasn't a personality back then

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How do you know?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I tried posting about how Black folk are always guilty and the cause of all my problems in 1957 but got no (you)'s

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >being a chud wasn't a personality back then

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I carry his spirit forwards

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He was right about everything

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        his only fault was being to soft

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because he understood the assignment:
    "Beyond a reasonable doubt"

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The key word is reasonable.

      You have to assume an absurd amount of circumstances all working in conjunction to buy the idea the kid wasn't guilty.

      Or to put it in a way your can understand, only an unreasonable person would believe he was not guilty.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There was a ton of reasonable doubt for premeditated murder. Nowadays they charge multiple tiers of murder. Black person.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You have to assume an absurd amount of circumstances all working in conjunction to buy the idea the kid wasn't guilty.
        This.
        In the movie Fonda's character spends a lot of time just inventing stories to suit his narrative too. At one point he suggests one of the eyewitnesses was lying to feel important or something like that.

        That in itself is a deeply immoral thing to do, and goes against what the jury is supposed to be doing, which is deciding a verdict based on the evidence presented in the court.

        The whole movie is about one man's emotional kneejerk reaction supposedly being the enlightened intelligent position.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >and goes against what the jury is supposed to be doing, which is deciding a verdict based on the evidence presented in the court.
          So what, if the public defender assigned to you is a moron who puts up no defense on your behalf you're automatically consigned to death? The jury system exists for this very reason, to allow wiggle room within the law. A jury isn't a group of faceless automatons who exist purely to receive input and give output within a strict set of logical confines, that's what a judge is for.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            'Wiggle room' is different to 'just making shit up out of thin air'.
            Anyone on any jury could say 'well I'm deciding that all the witnesses were lying, instead I'm going to choose my verdict based on my own fanfiction because it makes me feel better'.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              A lone juror deciding that literally does not hurt the judicial process at all. If he really is a wackjob and none of the other jurors agree with him then it's a hung jury, and you just get another trial.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Which proves the point that the movie is badly written given that Fonda's crackpot theories shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. The message of the movie isn't that, though, it's that we're meant to be deeply moved by his drivel and find it to be compelling enough to let the guy off the hook.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Nothing was made up out of thin air. Glasses sucked in the 40s. Movie theaters just ran whatever and you bought a ticket, walked in during the middle of whatever was playing, and left when you wanted. The prosecution claimed the knife was unique, knives like it were sold on every street corner.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                At one point he suggests an older man was lying to feel important because he has nothing else going on in his life and enjoys the attention. It's an egregiously immoral point to argue and has no basis in anything except #8's defective mind. That is made up out of thin air.

                There was a point where he starts suggesting a trolley ran by within a certain time frame, based upon the fact that 'he used to live near one of the lines', which is completely nonsensical. It implies they all run at the same speed, are of the same length, something he had no way to know and was likely wrong about.

                The knife point was weak I agree, the movie point was semi weak. Overall the evidence was massively in favor of 'guilty' and only an unreasonable man, with a malevolent agenda to side with criminals at the detriment to the safety of the public, would choose not guilty.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How did the old man with a limp see the suspect?

                Did he teleport?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So the hill you’re dying on now is
                >people never lie
                >cops never submit shitty cases to be prosecuted
                >prosecutors never assume they can jam through shitty/weak cases on racial prejudices alone

                It was a shitty prosecution based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >People never lie
                I never said that. I said it's deeply immoral to start inventing stories out of thin air when you're supposed to be on a jury judging the case on its merits.
                >cops never submit shitty cases to be prosecuted
                Sure they do, not sure what that's got to do with this one.
                >prosecutors never assume they can jam through shitty/weak cases on racial prejudices alone
                Pattern noticing is a positive trait and a sign of intelligence. Something #8 is clearly uncomfortable with.

                If the movie wasn't written for propaganda purposes it would have had one of the other jurors ask #8 about his many theories he dreamed up on the spot, and challenge them, 'Do you have a good reason to think that old guy was making things up?' 'What if he wasn't? Maybe we should have reasonable doubt to believe him on this one?'

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > Overall the evidence was massively in favor of 'guilty' and only an unreasonable man,

                In favour doesn't mean he did it.

                That's kinda the point of the whole movie.
                If everyone was juror 8 and objected to shitty ideas that aren't supported by proper evidence then we'd hardly be worse off.

                >le unique knife that isn't actually unique oops teehee I guess the prosecution just made a little oopse whoopsie when trying to condemn a young man to death. Just a little funny doing my le job. teehee!

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >People never lie
                I never said that. I said it's deeply immoral to start inventing stories out of thin air when you're supposed to be on a jury judging the case on its merits.
                >cops never submit shitty cases to be prosecuted
                Sure they do, not sure what that's got to do with this one.
                >prosecutors never assume they can jam through shitty/weak cases on racial prejudices alone
                Pattern noticing is a positive trait and a sign of intelligence. Something #8 is clearly uncomfortable with.

                If the movie wasn't written for propaganda purposes it would have had one of the other jurors ask #8 about his many theories he dreamed up on the spot, and challenge them, 'Do you have a good reason to think that old guy was making things up?' 'What if he wasn't? Maybe we should have reasonable doubt to believe him on this one?'

                To add
                >If everyone was juror 8 and objected to shitty ideas that aren't supported by proper evidence then we'd hardly be worse off.
                Yes we would. If everyone was juror #8 it would be almost impossible to convict criminals of their crimes because some fool would be suggesting all the evidence pointing to someone being guilty isn't good enough.

                That's why it's a propaganda movie. There has been a left wing push to get people to side with criminals for many years now, against their better judgement. Always siding with the criminal instead of the victim. Portraying bad people who brutalize innocent citizens as 'misunderstood', or 'the real victims'.

                It's an example of the fallacy of the 'midwit' where someone is just intelligent enough to start doubting their natural human instincts but not intelligent enough to realize their instincts are actually right most of the time.

                People of slightly higher than average IQ often fall into this trap and start buying into whatever shitty ideology is being pushed their way.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes we would. If everyone was juror #8 it would be almost impossible to convict criminals of their crimes because some fool would be suggesting all the evidence pointing to someone being guilty isn't good enough.
                Nobody is forcing you do have a jury trial. Requesting a jury is a choice. Learn how the judicial system works before you start spouting shit moron

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If you want to start talking about how it would be in real life then the whole movie falls apart. That knife scene in itself would be completely unacceptable for numerous reasons, in reality.

                But it's a movie we're discussing so I'm commenting on the story portrayed in it. Reading comprehension is difficult for you though which would explain why you missed every single point.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You parents werent even alive in the 40s. I have reasonable doubt and believe your post is a bunch of lies.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The defense was clearly shit and that's reason enough to have reasonable doubt.

        If the evidence isn't clearly examined or contextualised then it's worthless.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Then hang the jury so the prosecutor has to cut a deal or drop the case. Its equally moronic to find the Hispanic not guilty.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not guilty of premeditated murder. Of which there is basically no real evidence.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Sending someone to the chair based solely on witnesses statements and a not so one f a kind knife
        Now I understand why they manage to send so many innocent people to death row

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >absurd amount of circumstances all working in conjunction
        I think the amount of circumstances he thought of was reasonable.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Uh huh. The only witnesses fingered the Hispanic but no one saw the random knife wielding maniac that attacked the dad out of nowhere?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Or it was manslaughter and they thought they could get a first degree murder conviction.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He was the killer

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    israeli movie to subvert healthy community instinct

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >israeli movie to subvert healthy community instinct
      Actually I quite agree

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Also pushes us to set a standard for ourselves that other countries wouldn't do for us. If you were on trial in a non white country you wouldn't have non whites like this jumping to defend you and no matter how much we do this they will never change.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Same as M

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The fact the defendant is a "person of color" and all the jurors are white tells you everything. Of course, one juror has to be racist a.k.a. the bad guy.

      Mr. Lumet did a wonderful job.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's his favorite hobby. He begins by maneuvering his way onto jury pools for murder trials and then the real fun starts. He convinces his fellow jurors to vote not guilty for defendants he is absolutely certain are guilty. It gets his dick hard knowing he is smarter than everybody else by manipulating them and the system.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this
      guy saps the american justice system because he gets a kick out of it

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Big brained take right here

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    he was the real killer , that's why he had the same knife.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He had a reasonable doubt.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was just bad writing. They made the case against the kid way too solid so Fonda didn’t come across as a smart, independent juror but a biased bleeding heart who was determined to let the poor little brown kid off regardless of the evidence. Criminals are put away every single day with much less evidence against them than this case, and rightly so

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Movie went over your head, didn't it?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You forgot the other side of the coin, that innocents are put away with much less evidence against them than this case, and wrongfully so.
      The system is not infallible.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    people who say he was le real killer are imbeciles. he's just a bleeding heart who feels a little sorry for the kid. but why does he want to release a killer back into the streets? perhaps he doesn't even know himself.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Dear God I remember reading about this years ago. It was one of the most disgusting things I ever read and it convinced me to stop arguing with White liberals.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe the guy wasn't liberal, maybe he just hated his daughter and wanted to reward the guys who did what he never had the courage to do.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hollywood would never make this same movie about a German soldier who's accused of war crimes, and the case against him is motivated by the prejudices of the israeli jury members.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The modern equivalent would be a really weak case against a police officer for shooting some dindu and a dindu on the jury convinces all the whites to convict

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Nazi analogy

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Literally leftist propaganda.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. This movie and to kill a mockingbird were the first examples of communist Hollywood trying to make you feel bad about being white and question legit biases

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Genuinely this.

      It was just bad writing. They made the case against the kid way too solid so Fonda didn’t come across as a smart, independent juror but a biased bleeding heart who was determined to let the poor little brown kid off regardless of the evidence. Criminals are put away every single day with much less evidence against them than this case, and rightly so

      This as well. I thought the movie was decent but it became ridiculous as he starts coming up with more and more tenuous theories.
      Although what no one ITT has mentioned is that some of the jurors had shit reasons for voting guilty, like the guy who was more interested in watching a sports game so wanted the trial to be over with quickly.

      This. This movie and to kill a mockingbird were the first examples of communist Hollywood trying to make you feel bad about being white and question legit biases

      To be honest, the movie was too unrealistic. For the time and place it was set in, racial bias would have applied to most of the jury not just that one guy.

      Interestingly, in this movie the alleged murderer was an Italian from the ghetto.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The actor was Italian but he was portraying a latino

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The script does not mention race but the 1957 film interpretation implies that the defendant is Puerto Rican due to the time period and the use of a switchblade.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The actor was Italian but he was portraying a latino

          Didn't know that, looked like a Southern Italian in the movie.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Back then only whites and ~~*whites*~~ for the most part were actors even when the role needed another race

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. This movie and to kill a mockingbird were the first examples of communist Hollywood trying to make you feel bad about being white and question legit biases

      >Hey guys, maybe you shouldn’t let your racism get in the way of facts?
      >LE MOTHERHECKING COMMIES ARE TRYING TO KEEP ME DOWN!

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Go back to redit you stupid liberal shit

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It’s actually spelled Reddit

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Go back to redit you stupid liberal shit

        >assmad about the blue one and the red one
        you're both gays

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          what part of go back don't you understand libshit?

          >It’s actually spelled Reddit

          If you weren't a newbie liberal from reddit you would know there was a reason why I purposely mispelled it

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Settle down, okay?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Go back

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        All the facts point to the guilt of the accused.

        It takes a deeply disturbing but par for the course leftist fetishization of minorities to reach the conclusion he is not guilty.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I’M JUST SAYING IT’S POSSIBLE!

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Nu male appears
        >Denies facts

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But innocent men like chauvin and rittenhouse does not apply for some reason

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Rittenhouse walked because the prosecution was trying to create a concept/precedent that was basically “premeditated self-defense” and the judge was aware of that, and kept b***hslapping the prosecutor every time he tried expand the scope of the “crime.”

        Chauvin is stuck in prison because there was no way for there to be an impartial jury.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    To be honest, the movie was too unrealistic. For the time and place it was set in, racial bias would have applied to most of the jury not just that one guy.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He was an irl shitposter. He single-handedly let a murderer go free.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Only on Cinemaphile is it impossible to talk about one of the best movies ever made just because the main characters aren’t Nazis

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      we have a thread about this movie every week.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But it’s all in bad faith

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          like Henry Fonda's arguments?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He had a reasonable doubt

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              No, he was a homosexual and should have been removed from the jury for bringing a knife.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It was a different time. Everyone had knives.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >reasonable doubt
              He had unreasonable doubt.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                why?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                See my other posts. It's wrong for a juror to ignore what he has been presented with in court and instead start inventing stories out of thin air to use as evidence in the case.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                He didn’t ignore anything. He had reasonable doubts about what was presented.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                He invented a theory about a witness being a liar who made things up because he liked attention.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because there was no way for him to have seen what he said he saw.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There was but now its obvious youre being stupid on purpose.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But also wasn't, see how that works?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's okay to doubt the credibility of a witness, humans are not machines, they can make mistakes

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It isn't one of the best movies ever made. It's a decent movie that's incredibly overrated because it has a lefty message to it.

      It's the same reason I can't trust reviews on letterboxd if it turns out the movie in question has some kind of political theme to it, because they all just give it high ratings because they approve of the politics and don't care if it's a good movie. This is especially true with older movies where it seems like any left wing slant of any kind gets it 5 stars automatically.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The problem is that in retrospect you start to see how biased the film is towards Juror #8's point of view and how he always gets the last word.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well directed, well acted film, shame it's message is dogshit. Little shit was guilty.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He was trying to skip work by being on jury duty

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This site is proof that he was right about parents beating their kids

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >tfw Mauler bases his entire persona around Juror 8

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Frick off homosexual

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jury nullification is going to get worse the less white we get

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Don’t you ever get tired obsessing over race?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        20 years ago I never cared. Blacks and liberals have forced race into everything so yes I have to care now but it's not my fault

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Tbh things weren’t much better under white rule

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Objectively they were

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >stage 1: Wyte pipo is evil we need to replace them cuz the world sucks
              >stage 2: the world sucks more now but it wasn't that much better under whitey
              is this the new narrative of you moronic Black folk to cope with ruining perhaps the best shot at humanity elevating itself beyond the nation-state? White people bad?

              You’re not exactly helping the cause, chimping out like this

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No one is chimping out. We are making comments and you get upset by them now multiple times.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Gaslighting is a female tactic, you know?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >unironically using that term
                once again go back

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Unironically isn’t a word

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >stage 1: Wyte pipo is evil we need to replace them cuz the world sucks
            >stage 2: the world sucks more now but it wasn't that much better under whitey
            is this the new narrative of you moronic Black folk to cope with ruining perhaps the best shot at humanity elevating itself beyond the nation-state? White people bad?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes we do. Its called fatigue. Thats why we just move away so we don't get fatigue anymore.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I cant belive that a shitty Pauly Shore movie like Jury Duty calls out 12 Angry Men perfectly. Only some pathetic frick with selfish reasons would go out of their way to blatantly frick up the course of justice.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I DON’T UHHHH THINK HE’S GUILTY!

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why are you people like this?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Some black liberal is upset we can say things here that we can't on reddit and is having a melt down so now we are going to get angry passive aggressive spam

      Unironically isn’t a word

      It is

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Frick it. Round up the usual suspects: nigs, hispanics and mad protestants. They're guilty 99% of the time.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fonda as famous for being a huge libtard and POC can do no wrong

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Gee, why did Hollywood ignore the thousands of real-life cases of B on W crime and make a whole movie about the prosecution of an innocent BM?

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Juror 8 was a hero because he stood up against the loud minority of jurors who believed the guy was guilty. During the very first jury vote you literally see how reticent half of the jurors are in voting guilty, but they do it anyway because of the strong opinions of the loudmouthed dumbfrick jurors. They ALREADY had a reasonable doubt from the outset, and it took one guy to speak his mind and articulate his reasoning in order to give them the confidence to go with their original intuitions.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >~~*Sidney Lumet*~~
    Black Pilled did a great video on hisother movie The Pawnbroker, wish he talked about thisone as well

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Buy an ad homosexual

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    stupid israeli movie

    >yea but WHAT IF the bloody knife found on the puerto rican kid matching the blood type of granny who got stabbed 23 times was actually done by a WASP and he just picked it up???

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >It is better to permit the crime of a guilty person to go unpunished than to condemn one who is innocent
    Emperor Justinian understood very well what americans constantly struggle to understand

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No sane country in the world would use a jury of citizens to determinate the innocence of a person. That movie show us how they can be easily manipulated by attorneys. A courtroom in another country would had easily dismissed the case because of the lack of concrete evidence. Even more if the defense had bothered to do their job and find out the knife wasn't one of a kind

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The US has a grand jury process whose job it is to basically “vet” the quality of a case before it can go to trial. Twelve angry men is a situation where they kinda rubber stamped a shitty case that looked pretty good on paper.

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He did it

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The point of the movie isn't about determinating wether the accused is guilty or not, is about attorneys not doing their jobs properly

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah. The prosecution thought they could steamroll a kid with a public defender.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Also the public defender. Fonda was practically doing his job

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *