Did they get it right?
- Home
- Board: /tv/ - Television & Film
- Reading: Did they get it right?
Did they get it right?
It felt like you were the 13th juror and had to decide for what the characters said whether the boy was guilty or not. That's why they did not show the events prior to the trial.
>>68188925
From*
>>68188444
It's meant to be open ended, bug the movie wasn't really about the boy it was about the interactions between a dozen over the top one dimensional characters.
>innocent until proven guilty
Maybe he killed his father or maybe he didn't, but no one could proof that he was guilty and that makes him innocent.
No, they didn't. He was guilty.
The murderer not remembering the movie he went to (and not having a ticket stub) was the biggest piece of evidence to me.
And when they started grilling the juror like "what movie did you see 3 weeks ago? who was in it? what was the title?" etc, he answer every question, but got the title a little bit wrong (The Incredible Mrs. Bainbridge, as opposed to The Remarkable Mrs. Bainbridge).
Buncha bleedin' hearts...
What is beyond a reasonable doubt? I know a lot of you are from /pol/ and like to see criminals get killed on the street, but as far "getting it right," beyond a reasonable doubt is the qualifier.
>>68190715
I would hate to be wrongfully accused of a crime because I'd more than likely get a guilty verdict with the retards they get who don't understand reasonable doubt or law in general
>>68188444
reasonable doubt is a pillar of the american criminal justice system
>>68190903
Founding fathers weren't talking about shitskins
>>68190982
children should be seen and not heard
>>68190982
There are no 'shitskins' in 12 Angry Men.
>>68190903
Sir Blackstone should get fucked by blacks
>>68191404
the accused was Italian or was he Puerto Rican? either way not white
>>68191516
His parents were Norwegian immigrants according to the wiki.
