Was he guilty?
Yeah, probably.
But they still made the right decision. You shouldn't give someone the chair because "yeah, they were probably guilty".
>>67572865
So the 12 angry men did the wrong thing?
>>67572760
I think so.
I always thought it would have been cool if the boy turned out to be a mafia hitman and Juror 8 was a plant to get the boy off.
The movie argument is the most bullshit. If you just got back from the theater, you would remember the fucking name of the movie even if you were under stress.
>>67573057
"WHAT MOVIE DID YOU SEE?!"
>Don't say 'My Little Pony Hentai Rape Orgry 5'
>Don't say 'My Little Pony Hentai Rape Orgry 5'
>Don't say 'My Little Pony Hentai Rape Orgry 5'
>Don't say 'My Little Pony Hentai Rape Orgry 5'
>Don't say 'My Little Pony Hentai Rape Orgry 5'
"I.. I don't remember..."
>>67572760
CHRISTOPHEEEEEEEEEEEEEER
>>67573057
That argument is made by the guy at the end though when he says he would remember the movies
Who cares? The system works.
>>67572760
I don't see why they just decided that the woman couldn't have put on her glasses to see they boy. Was Juror 8 autistic and took the testimonies literally word for word?
>>67572760
>Muh motive to kill
>muh knife
>muh movie
>muh woman might not wearing glasses
>muh old slow man
>muh daddy issues boo hoo
>muh knowing how to use a knife when stabbing dad
>muh movie
Yes, this little shit killed his abusive, and probably sexual, father.
Think of it this way.
"I'll kill you" because he was going to kill daddy
Old bitch can't sleep because it's hot, so she's in bed with glasses on and sees murder in window when train passes by.
Old man gets to stairs in time to see kid fleeing scene because the kid was dumbstruck by what he did. Giving that old fart plenty of time to get off his fat ass.
The kid bought that knife for show. He never knew how to use it, so he won't be good at stabbing peeps.
No one saw him at movies because he didn't go.
Criminals always return to the scene of the crime.
The alternative is. Someone wanted his dad dead, at the very same time the kid wasn't in the house, with a similar looking knife, approximately a few minutes after the kid left, or possibly before if the old man was trustworthy after all.
So yeah, that little Hispanic should have been having his hole pounded as the last scene in the movie.
>>67572760
probably but evidence pointed otherwise
>>67572760
I dindu nuffin, mayne.
>>67573057
normies don't always know, we browse /tv/ and we have usually heard a lot about the movie before we even watch it. I at least can recognize scenes from movies I haven't even watch and always know a couple who are in theaters, but a guy who just goes into the movie can forget I know my parents don't always remember the name of the movies 1 hour later, sometimes they don't even know the while watching them
>>67574819
They had more reason to doubt the woman's testimony after the old man's one was clearly flawed. Juror 8 took the testimonies seriously because literally nobody else did, the testimonies could have been correct but if there is a legitimate reason to doubt them, the jury can't vote to send someone to their death, simple.
I never understood juries. How can they even let a bunch of random people decide a person's fate? Shouldn't they have qualified people for that?
Regardless, Fonda technically broke the rules with that whole buying the identical knife bullshit and it should have been a mistrial.
>>67572760
Showing his boysish, sad, "so innocent" face is the worst directorial decision I've seen in any Lumet movie. A big point of the play is that no one in the audience knows anything about the defendant save for what they can infer from the jurors' arguments.
The Friedkin remake is 100x better.
>>67575575
The idea is that, if someone is gonna be sent to live in a cage, it should be at the hands of everyday folk who seriously believe that the person has done wrong rather than government beaurocrats handling that decision any way they want to without being checked.
I remember reading an article somewhere that bitched and moaned that Juror 8 was acting outside of his jurisdiction by making all these inferences and claims. It was the lawyer's job to do so, not the jurors. I think it might have been cracked, so whatevs.
Also, I almost had jury duty once. I was psyched because I was going to see what it was really like. But then it got cancelled.
>>67573057
Keep in mind it was the 50's. Movies were cheap, and multiple picture showings and matinees were common. Its like how you could flip through TV and watch a procedural, but not place the exact name. Now, you could argue that not being able to at least describe the movie or the genre being an issue, but at the same time,there's also two other reasons I could think of;1) He just fucked around during the movie and dazed off or fell asleep, sinc eit was just some random movie he walked into and, movies being cheap, its no big deal if he wastes his money, or 2) being questioned like that made him shaken up so even if he could name details he'd be so vague about it it'd sound made up. "Uh, it was a movie about a guy..", something like that.
>>67575575
>Shouldn't they have qualified people for that?
You don't see an inherent issue here?
>>67575575
>guy I know gets jury duty
>break room
>"have to miss work for this goddamn minimum wage fucking waste of my time I HOPE THEY KNOW WHICHEVER JURY I'M PUT ON THAT GUY IS GOING TO FRY. I don't care if it is parking tickets, that fucker is guilty right now and I ain't chaning my mind even if it means he gets off hung jury or some shit. That fucker is getting the chair."
>Smile inside because it is the exact opposite of 12 Angry Men
>>67575726
You do realize hes a skinny wop dego faggot and that would, to the audience of the time, automatically think he was guilty, and the following movie was walking people through how to think rationally?
>>67577427
The movie wasn't teaching them to think rationally so much as conditioning them to use tortured logic to avoid ever going to the obvious conclusion when a minority does something bad, so it would be easier to prevent popular outrage and backlash against policies being pushed at the time, e.g. desegregation, the resumption of mass immigration, etc.. It makes sense in the context of the movie, but that's how good propaganda works.
Just watched the movie for the first time last week thought it was great , I thought he wasn't guilty
>>67572902
>So the 12 angry men did the wrong thing?
No, not at all. If the kid was guilty then the fault lies with the prosecution. The jury fulfilled their duty by determining that the defendant's guilt had not been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.
>>67577586
... hi /pol/, how ya doin?
Do you realize you just rejected the idea of other types of racism existing in the past, because those types of racism basically don't exist now, and the idea that racial conflicts are temporary goes against your chosen narrative?
>>67577652
>>67577344
>>67575871
To a Brit this sounds like a really cool, and refreshingly libertarian ideal. I'm honestly surprised America still does it.
How accurate is this?
>>67577933
#11 should be /int/, but I saved it anyway.
>>67577763
12 Angry Men was made in the late 50s, at a time when movies and tv shows were being used to push narratives that would condition people to be more tolerant. There is an episode of Gunsmoke from the same era that features an Arapaho woman being attacked by vigilantes after a racist shopkeeper prematurely blames her people for a recent attack by unidentified indians. The purpose of this broad propaganda campaign was to pave the way for desegregation and the reopening of the borders to immigrants from overseas. In order to sell these grande projects to the public, the public first had to be conditioned to see any apprehension of outgroups as irrational and dangerous, and to see going to extreme lengths to give foreigners and minorities the benefit of the doubt as rational, fair, and high-minded.
The decade-long propaganda campaign running up to the time when government enacts sweeping change that drastically changes society is a very well established phenomenon. Will and Grace was a similar opinion shaper in the early days of the run up to normalizing homosexuality.
>>67578040
I am not calling you a tinfoil hat crazy, but could you be confusing the cause and the effect?
Is it possible that those in media made television and movies that support tolerance bceause those were the popular themes of the time? And not "media wants the people to be tolerant, let's push it on them."
Also, Twilight Zone of that time could be included in your examples of tolerance media.
>>67577901
what do you have in britain?
>>67578204
Common law
I wonder how much of a shitstorm this movie's white male cast would create if it were released today.
>>67577933
But /pol/ is always right
>>67578483
>>67572760
Suppose you were supposin' supposas.
>>67578142
They were popular themes because they were being pushed by people with an agenda. It wasn't an organized conspiracy exactly, but more a case where the people in charge of media, government, and academia had come to see prevailing social attitudes as deleterious to their own interests. Businesses wanted more cheap labor and more people to sell stuff to, politicians wanted blacks empowered so they could be more useful politically, Jews felt uneasy about any expression of ethnic or nationalist sentiment from the majority, and so on. So when a movie or tv show is being made by a group of people who all support desegregation for a variety of reasons, they are going to use it to push a desegregationist agenda. The great mass of the common people would have gone on repressing blacks, keeping immigration at a low level, and being intolerant of homosexuals pretty much indefinitely had they not been influenced by influential culture-crafters who consciously and proactively wanted to change public opinions on a host of issues.
>>67578553
Fucking kek. /pol/ really is filled with retards.
>>67578204
>>67577901
He's fucking retarded, we literally have trial by jury where the person has to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
>>67578596
>>67578596
>so when a movie or tv show is being made by a group of people who all support desegregation for a variety of reasons,
Again, it was the people who changed. It wasn't like the old white men in charge suddenly decided this was the best thing to do. They got replaced by younger liberals with different beliefs.
>they are going to use it to push a desegregationist agenda.
No, not necessarily. They are going to make a popular and profitable show. Or something that will leave its mark by being ground breaking.
Although I can see rich white businessmen and politicans becoming liberal because it is profitable. I just find it less likely.
And I use "white men" as a catchall term for the ruling class. They may not have been white or men.
>>67578767
sir, SIR! Are you trying to imply someone isn't always in direct control over everything? For that is absolutely preposterous!
Inside Amy Schumer's 12 Angry Men parody is much more amazing than the source material itself. I've been a fan of Amy's for years, both her stand-up and her TV show, but this episode really struck me as so brilliantly different and well done that I had to write a post about it.
Amy, herself, is mostly absent from Season 3, Episode 3, entitled 12 Angry Men Inside Amy Schumer. Instead of the typical sketches, nearly the entire episode is a spot-on parody of the classic 1957 film filled with great performances from Jeff Goldblum, Paul Giamatti, John Hawkes and several other great actors and comedic minds.
If you haven't already seen the original 12 Angry Men (which everyone should), you might not appreciate some of the finer satire, however the subject of the jurors' decision, "Is Amy Schumer hot enough for TV?" is a hilarious and original take on a the subject matter that I think anyone can enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96LgRmOF9_o
>>67572760
Look at that naive, innocent face. Guilty as hell.
>>67578767
The ruling class at the time was more liberal than you think. The segregationist champion Theodore Gilmore Bilbo was marginalized in congress by FDR's people because of his strong racial views. Eisenhower and the elderly justices of the Supreme Court began enforcing the first officials government actions of the Civil Rights era. Populist politicians had been trying to puzzle out ways to empower blacks in return for votes without simultaneously pissing off whites for a long time.
It can be somewhat confusing because the ruling class wasn't monolithic in its attitudes and even the liberals among them were still conservatives by our standards on lots of issues, but they were trending in liberal directions on things like race and immigration well before the younger generation took the reigns.
>>67578856
>>67578856
>Jeff Goldblum
SOLD!
>>67579045
>Theodore Gilmore Bilbo
The only thing more ridiculous than his name is his political life, as presented by wikipedia.
Donald Trump is kinf of like an echo of this guy, on the surface at least.
>>67576490
This. People just went to the movies and saw whatever. It's just like turning the TV, flipping through, and watching something. Then someone comes in and says "whatcha watching?" and you're all "eh, I dunno"
>>67578856
>Sketch is entirely about Amy Schumer's appearance
>The end of the video advertises two more sketches, both of which are entirely about Amy Schumer's appearance
k then
>>67578856
>>67573057
>>67576490
It's heavily implied that the kid is a reefer fiend who went on a drug induced rampage. He couldn't remember anything later due to a black out. Just look at his glazed over eyes and his spic face. He's as guilty as Sacco and Vanzetti.
