Showing all 133 replies.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>220462542
Bad writing
>>220462571
>Look guys, I know the defendant has motive, opportunity, and was placed at the scene by witnesses, but if you want to get REALLY pedantic, then a single piece of evidence presented against him is only MODERATELY incriminating, rather than being absolute PROOF of his guilt all on its own
>And I know that his alibi couldn't stand up to cross examination, and there are no other suspects in the murder, but it's THEORETICALLY possible that someone else could have done it.
>This is America, and we're a great country, so you have to find him innocent
>>220462577
Believe it or not there are still people today who don't understand what "reasonable doubt" entails and will hold up this movie as perfect
>>
It's hamfisted commie propaganda designed to make the public believe doubting their own common sense is the enlightened and moral position to take.
They even included that ridiculous scene where one juror says something vaguely racist and everyone else looks in horror at him.
>>220463195
This
>>
>>
>>220463329
>>220463195
It’s communist propaganda to make and agree with bait threads about this movie
>>
>>
File: bestpicturerules.png (141.7 KB)
>>220462542
This wouldn't be eligible for best picture in 2026
>>
File: 1773418336109801m.jpg (109.1 KB)
>>220462542
>>
File: 1754839674590777.jpg (21.1 KB)
>>220463624
>Mongolian
Ok just make this dude sing a song in-between acts a-la mariachi band from Breaking Bad
>>
>>
>>
>>220464270
>[I]n a judicial proceeding in which there is a dispute about the facts of some earlier event, the
factfinder cannot acquire unassailably accurate knowledge of what happened. Instead, all the
factfinder can acquire is a belief of what probably happened. The intensity of this belief-the degree to which a factfinder is convinced that a given act actually occurred-can, of course, vary. In this regard, a standard of proof represents an attempt to instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication. Although the phrases "preponderance of the evidence" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" are quantitatively imprecise, they do communicate to the finder of fact different notions concerning the degree of confidence he is expected to have in the correctness of his factual conclusions.
If you doubt the most probable scenario which is supported by evidence merely because improbable scenarios exist which are unsupported by evidence, your doubt is not reasonable
>>
>>
>>
>>220464387
>The justice system is inherently immoral. Therefore, the only moral choice is to inhibit it.
Why is it immoral?
All of life is a choice between lesser of evils. Which is the lesser evil - convicting a murderer in an imperfect system, or letting him walk free?
>>
>>
File: maxresdefault (1) (21).jpg (69.6 KB)
>>220462542
>call the guard
>tell them a juror brought a weapon to the jury room
>mistrial declared
>liberal faggot juror arrested
This is how you win this scenario
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>220463590
>>220464792
Oh shit, I have to watch this.
>>
File: 1775631878069220.jpg (8.7 KB)
>Lady may or may not have had marks on her nose from wearing glasses
Okay but maybe they're sunglasses. Or reading glasses.
Can her testimony really be dismissed for marks on her nose?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>220468462
It's ridiculous to think a movie that allows a murderer to walk and subverts every reasonable belief is wrong (including being RACIST!) because some retard breaks all the rules of a trail, jury, and the justice system to gaslight everyone, is Le Good. It's like boomers first M Night Shyamalan twist. They didn't know what the hell they just saw and didn't know how to reach other than say, OMG, my whole outlook on life is anew!
>>
File: Jane_Fonda_&_Henry_Fonda_&_Peter_Fonda,_1950s.jpg (77.7 KB)
>>220462542
hanoi jane said that the only that that her father beat her up is when she said the n-word and he beat her up and told her to never say that word because it's racist
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>220469742
>He didn't do anything illegal.
You cant present new evidence after the trial, or present a separate new defense to the jury, and then expect the jury to properly litigate against his surprise evidence and defense (on the spot without any prep) without lawyers or a judge present. All make a mockery of the justice system, ALL ILLEGAL.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>220469974
>You cant present new evidence after the trial, or present a separate new defense to the jury, and then expect the jury to properly litigate against his surprise evidence and defense (on the spot without any prep) without lawyers or a judge present. All make a mockery of the justice system, ALL ILLEGAL.
>present video of the REAL murderer
>everyone agrees the defandant literally did nothing wrong.
>MUH INADMISSABLE
>defendant gets death by firing squad so the DA can avoid a tally mark against career advancement.
>>
>>220470330
The movie is talking about plausibility, and the best counterargument you can come up with outright facts in a imaginary scenario? I bet you called a retard a lot on here.
>The jury wants to submit the obvious verdict and get the fuck out of there
>One fucking asshole who is going into business for himself like a mark, is holding them up
>They oblige the retard instead of kicking him off the jury for breaking the law to get the quick resolution they want
>Movie presents the easy solution to their problems and they ignore it
>movie appeals to morons who know nothing about justice or the law but are opinionated enough to think they are smart
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>220462542
>How the fuck did he get away with this?
I think you presume that the “rules of law” are actually strictly applied.
Technically, jurors are only supposed to consider the facts presented in court, and personal knowledge, and not actually research stuff outside of court, but plenty of jurors will currently probably google stuff nowadays, or might have checked a reference book in the past, and it’s unlikely a case would get thrown out or declared a mistrial simply for bullshit like that, as I know, because I served on a Jury.
Bringing in the knife would likely be impossible in most courthouses nowadays, at least by jurors, because of security screening, but again, do you think a judge is going to throw out a multi day trial, when a juror just showed the prosecution presented false testimony, and bullshit facts ?
The defense attorney could dimply ask for the duplicate knife for the retrial, showing the knife might actually be commonly available, and locally purchasable, and part of the case goes away.
Once a mistrial is declared, the defense could also ask the juror why he thought the defendant might be innocent, and then use that during the retrial, as well as possibly pumping the “guilty” jurors, why they thought the defendant was guilty, as a means of presenting a better case.
Judges also have free means to put a finger on the scales of justice.
Back then, there were also usually competing papers, and a juror kicked off a jury for pointing out the police and prosecutor lied in court, or at least didn’t investigate evidence properly would have made a good story for a journalist, especially concerning a murder case.
>>
>>220463195
>Believe it or not there are still people today who don't understand what "reasonable doubt" entails and will hold up this movie as perfect
The standard instruction for evidence in court, involves a story about leaving your house in the morning and seeing snow and footprints, and thereby reasonably presuming that it snowed over night, and then someone walked thru the snow after it snowed.
While this is a reasonable presumption, it could not actually be the case, and there are multiple reasons it might not actually be the case, in multiple environments, so taking alternative possibilities into consideration if the facts or location could support the alternative conclusions is reasonable.
>>
>>220472679
>oh... you havent dug up the entire sahara desert?
There is a rather old story about a war, with a poetic account supposedly by a guy named “Homer”.
Nobody is completely sure where exactly the war took place, although there are numerous claims about a site in Turkey called Hisarlik.
No evidence seems to exist for a huge battle having taken place at Hisarlik though.
The site, later identified in Classical antiquity as the site of the battle, became a pilgrimage site for centuries though, meaning ancient relic hunters might have collected most battle remains left in the area, let alone scavengers right after the battle, since collecting war booty was a thing in most wars.
Meanwhile, historians seem to place the battle as having occurred, (if real), around 1200-1180 B.C.
An Italian, Felice Vinci, wrote a book claiming the Trojan War actually happed in the Baltic, and the legends about the battle were brought with those Baltic people when they later migrated South into the Mediterranean Sea.
It just happens that there is evidence, (and human remains), from a battle in Northern Germany, in Mecklenberg, in the lake district, with the age of the battle being estimated at about 1300 B.C. , which is close enough for “margin of error” issues, given the “mythological” narrative of “The Iliad”, and dating issues that have come up in reconstructed chronologies.
Also, Northern Germany and the Baltic is full of bronze weapons and armor.
>>
>>220462542
Do you know just offhand what happens if a member of the jury has to be replaced? I don't, I don't think any of those men did either. They were all desperate to just be done and leave, and were probably afraid of what might happen if this was brought to anyone's attention. What if the whole trial has to be done again? I don't know, they don't know. We can just do a quick search on our phone now but they couldn't.
>>
>>
File: images (2) (5).jpg (41.5 KB)
>>220469686
White guilt is a helluva drug
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>220469974
>You cant present new evidence after the trial, or present a separate new defense to the jury, and then expect the jury to properly litigate against his surprise evidence and defense (on the spot without any prep) without lawyers or a judge present. All make a mockery of the justice system, ALL ILLEGAL.
If you have ever sat thru legal proceedings, the way the legal system routinely works is closer to a Jonathan Swift parody, than to the “ideal”, the legal system supposedly represents.
Also, a juror can argure that a knife is common, can be easily found, and that the juror saw one “exactly like that”, at “a store last week”, during juror deliberation to the other jurors, that juror is just not supposed to bring “new evidence” into the jury room.
Under the actual legal system, the dissenting juror could simply continue to vote “not guilty” continuously, forcing a mistrial, than when the jury is dismissed, present the knife to the judge, prosecutor, and defense, showing that the prosecutor presented false or questionable testimony, and bullshit facts at trial.
The dissenting juror could then present all the other arguments against the case to the defense lawyer.
Alternatively, you just let the jury decide to continue.
Most courts don’t want to have to deal with a retrial, and a judge could probably let the extra evidence slide to avoid the issue.
>>
>>220470415
>The jury wants to submit the obvious verdict and get the fuck out of there
>One fucking asshole who is going into business for himself like a mark, is holding them up
>They oblige the retard instead of kicking him off the jury for breaking the law to get the quick resolution they want
>Movie presents the easy solution to their problems and they ignore it
>movie appeals to morons who know nothing about justice or the law but are opinionated enough to think they are smart
Legally, any juror is allowed to vote “Not Guilty” continuously.
It is a checks and balance system.
If a juror gets kicked off the jury, you wind up with a mistrial, unless for some reason the juror just doesn’t show up, and can’t be found, and the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the judge, all agree to go continue to verdict with out a full jury.
There still might be cause for a mistrial even then.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>220462542
Presenting the second knife is legally inappropriate as it introduces new evidence; I wish remakes and adaptations would write around it, just have him make the argument that it *could* be a common knife that *could* be found elsewhere and go from there. Unfortunately it makes for a good dramatic moment so it sticks around in every remake and stage adaptation.
Everything else he does is perfectly within the limits of jury deliberations.
>>
File: snow me.jpg (133.4 KB)
>>220475022
wait, are you saying you're supposed to doubt your own footprints from walking in the snow???
if so to be it, then that ain't not sounded reasonable at any all!
>>
>>220469686
>beat up
is it within reasonable doubt to think she with "boat up" actually meant "rape" but was in such conditional she re-confused her words into more vague interpretation so she wouldn't be labeled as a two-timing homie-wreckoner of a bitch?
>>
File: crit drinks men 12 noon.jpg (219.0 KB)
u guys favorite alcohol drinker reviewer loves the shit out of the movie from when she was watched it first timed at 11 years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzwPNMiQFf8
>>
>>
>>
as a fourmer british citzen how do I become jury if I wanted to do it because troublesize americans by doubting their reasons and prolongifying courtroomdays into more to get freefooded and 2star motel-service by payage from states and I have become?
>>
>>
>>
is it ain't just me or whenever I start 12am threads its retordedly becum hamfested by indian eslers trying to subtofake my justice system into theirs by smelling out large confusable words and spammage it all with presentable matter of no perticularly nonsense, straight out babytalking in posts numerous times to ebb out any sound arguments in substitution of jungle fevering bullshits making me want to denegrofy my protopolar society by splitting the greays into backs and withs, thats what I'm saying, you know?
>>
>>220479880
I ain'tish known of from what standpoints of you've been talking from but in my honest perspective I am uncanceling my linguistic practice of juridical talk so to speech as I am become habital to courttalk like a promosional lawyer or defence attorney, which was my dreams of being a little, to make it regurly saying and programming my brain into the similar thinkage, if I ever become what it was, to be able to do what it is in demand and therephore I type sentance of longer than 100 words, lets say maybe threffiddy or so, becuz, you know, I sophistacykake myself into profesionalismic behaboor to add words make me sounds, you know smarter, I think that should do it, maybe a few more, so it reaches the reasonable undoubted stately procurred goal of declarance, you know, over and out!
>>
>>220479880
very well tried if my countance was to be unreasoable doubted but in any way it was to be stated as your's postage roach a nearly level of 84, while the answering gentlemen of the below, which is >>220480011 to whom I very refers of, roach even longer, so long I have hardage of believing but then again it was witnessed and the dubs settles the matter to so they (of whom I am sure at least one is a he") I calclutaed into 141 or even more, which is an applaudable mass of combinational letters in conjuction with spaces in between them which in total leaves an expression of joy and understanding to whom is almost unpredictable in our world, that is to say I speech of the earth and if you wonder who much I roach myself it has become into 113 now to make the feat even greater, as the numbers was unroachable record of sentence I am of belief, I think.
>>
>>220462542
Stupid jurors. You are supposed to base your judgment on the evidence presented in the case. Any smart person in that room would have contacted the judge and he would have been arrested and the jurors dismissed.
>>
>>220478426
no i meant that the anons couldn't explain in their own words what reasonable doubt means despite having a strong opinion. even if they were right by chance it wouldn't sit with me and i think that's the point the movie was trying to make
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>220479447
>wait, are you saying you're supposed to doubt your own footprints from walking in the snow???
>if so to be it, then that ain't not sounded reasonable at any all!
No, the basic anecdote judges say to explain “reasonable” conclusions, is
That “if a person opens their door in the morning, and sees snow and footprints thru the snow, then it is reasonable to presume that it snowed over night, and then someone walked past your door thru that snow”.
Technically though, snow is simply water vapor that has frozen, and become become water crystals, so any source of water vapor such as a broken steal pipe or exhaust blowing the steam from boiling water outside into frigid temperatures could create something that looks like snow, and which is virtually indistinguishable from snow, but which is not actually snow.
Further, frozen snow can melt in spots due to salt and chemical residues that might exist on a surface that “snow” lands on, so footprints from someone walking thru a salt brine puddle could make it look like someone had “walked” thru the “snow” that had just fallen, even if the footprints might be days old, and the sniw simply water vapor that froze in extremely cold temperatures, and I have seen both things happen in the city I live in, which has plenty of restaurants exhausting steam from cooking, and steam popes, and puddles full of salt brine from road salt and restaurant dumpster leakage.
In a rural area with hot springs with dissolved salts and occasional frigid weather, the same phenomena might happen.
The other possibilities have to be taken in context, but are fully possible.
>>
>>220479644
>as a fourmer british citzen how do I become jury if I wanted to do it because troublesize americans by doubting their reasons and prolongifying courtroomdays into more to get freefooded and 2star motel-service by payage from states and I have become?
In the US, you only get “sequestered” while on a jury, if the case is highly publicized, necessitating jury privacy, or if it seems like outside influences are trying to manipulate or threaten the jurors.
Also, at least in my state, you only get free food on the fifth day of deliberation, and it was basic bitch pizza, and a few two liter bottles of soda.
I doubt any hotel would likely be nice.
>>
>>220480134
>Stupid jurors. You are supposed to base your judgment on the evidence presented in the case. Any smart person in that room would have contacted the judge and he would have been arrested and the jurors dismissed.
Jurors are legally allowed to make their own decisions, based on their personal belief, in any evidence or testimony given in court, believing, or disbelieving, the credibility of any evidence, in whole ir in part, based on their personal knowledge and experience.
Basically, if s juror believes the kid is guilty because “Hispanics are criminal scum” then they are allowed to vote guilty based on that, and if a different juror believes “no son would kill his father” then that juror is allowed to vote not guilty based on that, and then you get a stalemate and a hung jury, or one side eventually gives up, or the jurors bargain with different charges. (Which is not covered by jury instructions, but which seems to be common).
Thinking courtroom and trial, and legal regulations are actually strictly followed is a major mistake if you ever get arrested, and may actually vary based on the judge, lawyers, jurisdiction, and the jury that gets pulled for a case.
>>
>>220483631
>Jurors are legally allowed to make their own decisions, based on their personal belief, in any evidence or testimony given in court, believing, or disbelieving, the credibility of any evidence, in whole ir in part, based on their personal knowledge and experience.
this is incorrect. you have to swear an oath before joining a jury that you will only make your decision based upon whether the defendant committed the crime for which he/she is on trial. it is technically true that nobody can really know why you voted the way you did, but if you give any indication that you intend to subvert the justice system in this way you will at best be removed from the jury and at worst you could be found guilty of perjury.
>>
reminder: the sole charge in 12 angry men was 1st degree murder. Read: cold blooded, premeditated. Modern trials give the jury the option of delivering a verdict on multiple tiers of murder. An argument escalating to a fight and accidental stabbing would be second degree or manslaughter, thus, much easier sell.
>>
>>220484071
You didn’t post anything that contradicted >>220483631
>>
>>220484071
>this is incorrect. you have to swear an oath before joining a jury that you will only make your decision based upon whether the defendant committed the crime for which he/she is on trial. it is technically true that nobody can really know why you voted the way you did, but if you give any indication that you intend to subvert the justice system in this way you will at best be removed from the jury and at worst you could be found guilty of perjury.
You are incorrect.
I have served on a jury, and while a juror is “supposed” to be impartial, the juror is allowed to believe or disbelieve, any testimony presented, or evidence presented, in whole or in part, based on their personal belief in the veracity of that evidence and testimony.
Technically, you shouldn’t say, “I hate hispanics”, but if you get on a jury, and were honest in your jury questionnaire, you will not get prosecuted for perjury, and at worst, might get kicked off the jury, but would give pretty hood cause for a mistrial or a retrial snd a thrown out conviction.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
The death penalty just for the unpremeditated and provoked murder of a physically abusive parent? Even if we ignore the fact that all the evidence against the kid was proven to be tenuous, that is beyond harsh, especially for a minor, even if he is guilty. Take into account that, like I said, all the evidence was flimsy, and it's a pretty clear cut innocent verdict in my eyes.
I get that this movie is kinda preachy and unrealistic, really trying to push a specific message, but if you actually take objection to the kid in this particular story being given a second chance at life, you are a vindictive person, and I would probably dislike you if I ever met you in the real world.
>>
>>220472654
>Ignore the evidence that's presented and believe in the innocence of this emotionally-disturbed man with a history of violence
No.
>>220485811
The rest of the evidence is strong enough to convict him
>>
>>220486075
>The rest of the evidence is strong enough to convict him
What other evidence? The knife that Henry Fonda managed to buy an exact replica of on a casual walk in the same neighborhood? It's not as if they found the actual murder weapon on the kid.
>>
File: 1766847052712317.jpg (74.5 KB)
>>220485811
>proven
>>
>>
>>220486241
You're falling for the red herring of the knife not being unique. It's a distinctive knife, not a common kitchen knife. Whether or not it's unique is irrelevant. A distinctive knife was used to murder someone, and the defendant, who owned such a knife, claimed to have lost it right before the murder. There are only two possibilities: A) The defendant is lying, or B) The defendant lost his distinctive knife within a couple of hours of another person who happens to own the same distinctive knife coming along and murdering his father. Scenario B is possible, but not plausible, especially in the absence of any other suspects or a solid alibi for the defendant.
>>
>>220486379
Did you even watch the movie?
>>220486414
>murder is a crime, guilty is guilty
Innocent until proven guilty. Nothing was proven, therefore he's innocent. It's that simple.
>Feeling is mutual
Nah, everyone loves me.
>>
>>
>>220486504
>Scenario B is possible, but not plausible
I fail to see how it's not plausible, when street vendors are literally selling identical knives in the neighborhood.
>especially in the absence of any other suspects
It's a bad neighborhood, violent crime happens there all the time.
>solid alibi for the defendant.
Interrogating a distressed kid without a lawyer present is just not reliable. They demonstrated this in the film.
>>
>>220486504
>You're falling for the red herring of the knife not being unique. It's a distinctive knife, not a common kitchen knife. Whether or not it's unique is irrelevant. A distinctive knife was used to murder someone, and the defendant, who owned such a knife, claimed to have lost it right before the murder. There are only two possibilities: A) The defendant is lying, or B) The defendant lost his distinctive knife within a couple of hours of another person who happens to own the same distinctive knife coming along and murdering his father. Scenario B is possible, but not plausible, especially in the absence of any other suspects or a solid alibi for the defendant.
It’s a knife, that was nit only “not unique” but also locally available to a juror who walked around yo some local stores and asked to see the knives available for sale.
Nowadays, I would have a harder time trying to purchase a particular Swiss Army Knife model, or Global Kitchen knife model, (unless I ordered online), than the juror had buying the supposedly “unique” knife.
The knife hen dimply becomes a “common” knife, that was the same as one the defendant owned, but which plenty of other people might own, rather than a “unique” marker.
The knife also shows that the prosecution and police either did a sloppy as guck job investigating the case, or were perfectly willing to present bullshit testimony to get a conviction, which inherently weakens any evidence the prosecution presented.
The other arguments against the prosecution witnesses do the same.
The prosecution basically presented a bunch of witnesses, who may have been perjuring themselves, or coerced into false testimony.
It was specifically mentioned that the defense attorney didn’t really bother with his job.
At that point, you have to decide between a possibly corrupt prosecution case, with fabricated witness testimony, or the claims of a defendant who claimed he was at the movies.
>>
>>220486836
>At that point, you have to decide between a possibly corrupt prosecution case, with fabricated witness testimony, or the claims of a defendant who claimed he was at the movies.
Indeed, it's impossible for us to know who is really telling the truth, so it really comes down to whether or not you are a bootlicker or a treehugger. Me, I'm a treehugger. I'd rather see a murderer go free than an innocent kid face the chair.
>>
>>220486075
>Ignore the evidence that's presented and believe in the innocence of this emotionally-disturbed man with a history of violence
>evidence
circumstantial
>history of violence
If your wife cheats on you and gaslights you for years and you slap her you're going to have history of violence on your record lmao you choose to believe the system and it's shallow subjective labels instead of your neighbor and that's the entire point of the movie
>>
>>220486752
All anecdotal, if we saw the actual trial and not one guy playing devils advocate because he wants to be a fly in the ointment. You can't prove his intentions were pure, or that he didn't do it himself.
>>
>>
>>220487786
The evidence against him is also anecdotal, as well as all around flimsy. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution, not the defense. That which can be asserted without proof can also be dismissed without proof.
>one guy playing devils advocate because he wants to be a fly in the ointment.
We're not exactly talking about unpaid parking tickets here. If a defenseless kid's life is on the line, I would want the jury to be as nitpicky and prudent as possible. I know it's just a movie, but finding Henry Fonda's character annoying because of his extreme scrutiny of all presented evidence borders on sociopathic.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>220485811
>But the witnesses were proven to be unreliable
No they were not. Fonda's character makes egregious leaps of logic to try to contort the facts of the case to his benefit.
>See that old man? Well he's walking with a limp! No way he could have moved quickly enough. Plus he had a nice suit on. That means he's an attention whore making the whole thing up!
This is a pathetic line of argument. How does the juror know the old man was limping at the time? Does he always limp? He could easily have suffered an injury more recently, maybe an acute one. Or maybe he has good days and bad days with a chronic condition.
>That lady? She has little indentations on her nose, that means she wears glasses! That means she's essentially blind! Ignore her!
Aside from the ridiculousness of expecting a room full of people to all be able to remember tiny indents on someone's nose from across a courtroom it's still a stupid argument.
How does the juror know what her prescription is? She may be long sighted for example, maybe she only needs glasses for reading, or maybe she's recently started wearing glasses.
You'd have just as strong an argument saying that the victim fell over on a knife by himself and there was actually no murderer at all, it's an equally stupid idea.
>>
>>
>>
>>220488731
A whole lot of what if's, and they're all pointless. The heart of the matter is not that they are proven liars, but that their testimonies are unreliable due to logistics. Juror 4 says it best, that he has reasonable doubt. You can't send a kid to the chair based on unreliable testimony. The proof is simply not strong enough.
>>
>>220488841
Considering that a juror with no formal education in law was able to turn the jury around on his own, if the lawyer indeed did his best, he is a shitty lawyer, and the kid still effectively has no one but juror 8 to speak for him.
>>
>>220488889
You didn't hear their testimony, just 8s very baised interpretation of it. You're putting a lot of faith in a guy who broke the law by introducing his own evidence during jury deliberation, nevermind bringing a switchblade knife into the court house.
>>
>>220489082
>You didn't hear their testimony, just 8s very baised interpretation of it.
No, you hear the other jurors recounting of their testimonnies as well, and it's at a point when they are convinced the kid is guilty.
>You're putting a lot of faith in a guy who broke the law by introducing his own evidence during jury deliberation, nevermind bringing a switchblade knife into the court house.
>"ERMAHGERD, HE BROKE THE LAW"
Bootlicker.
>>
>>
File: AdobeStock_6003567-900x900[1].jpg (91.3 KB)
>>220489717
>no u
The gesture of pardoning someone is done by waving one's hand like pic related, a fundamentally different gesture. Do better.
>>
>>
File: s04e08-mergers-and-acquisitions-1683058947[1].jpg (98.3 KB)
>>220489997
Oh, fuckin' master debater Charlie Kirk junior over 'ere.
>>
>>
>>220479127
>>220479201
Everything you said is irrelevant to the movie we're discussing. It's pretty pathetic to come in here, and act like your info is something we dont know, and you have to tell us for the benefit of what exactly? Letting us know you know. No one gives a shit. Get a life, and take a deep long look in the mirror and ask yourself why you are the way you are. Maybe instead of wasting your time and ours, you can use your "knowledge" to clue yourself into what you need to do to change and fix yourself.
>>
>>220484590
>An argument escalating to a fight and accidental stabbing would be second degree or manslaughter, thus, much easier sell.
But that's not what happened. The argument happened earlier, he left, came back and killed his dad. His stupid defense was, I just had an argument where I shouted "I'll kill you" and someone else just happened to kill him with the same knife I have while I was out at a movie. Anyone who agrees with Fonda is fucking braindead
>>
>>220487498
>circumstantial
congratulations on knowing a fancy word from crime shows but even those crimes show say that's enough to convict someone. Especially when it's overwhelming, not just one coincidence. The only time it's not, is usually when a black jury sees a black defendant and thinks the entire police department is out to frame them all, and dey all good boys and innocent.
>>
>>220462542
feelings are above any and everything
>>220480946
they literally did, though ?
>>
>>220488945
Yeah, because the lawyer has a judge and rules to abide by to make a case. The juror ignore all those rules, broke multiple ones, and did it without allowing a credible lawyer to counter his argument. It's all bullshit. Everything juror 8 did was exploiting the ignorance of the other jurors because he was a bleeding heart and would rather let a murderer go, if someone think his race was a no good race, just to prove a point that hey, maybe some of them are good, and it's YOU who are the bad one. LOL totally fucking ridiculous.
>>
>>
File: 1778387469223547.jpg (48.9 KB)
>>220488592
Contempt of court most definitely.