>*gaslights you*

>>211382742 (OP)
i now have a reasonable doubt that OP sucks major cock

>*solidextinguishes you*

>>211382809
>i wear glasses, so therefore your glasses argument speaks to me and i decided to vote not guilty

>I have illegally smuggled outside evidence into the jury room, which also happens to be a deadly weapon
>I am the good guy of this movie

>>211382795
ya blew it

>>211382871
He didn't smuggle evidence into the jury room. Jurors cannot introduce evidence.

Switchblades are cool.

i am no longer enteratined by watching ESLs struggle to comprehend US law

>>211383009
>enteratined
Do Chinks have access to our internet?

>>211383009
>that pic
We have to go back

Is Friedkin's version any better?

>>211383066
The majority does not and even if they did they prefer to keep to the sinosphere. The real problem is Indians

>>211383066
They have their own version of internet and social media.

>>211383009
>enteratined
GOOD MORNING SAAR

OFFICIAL SIDNEY LUMET POWER RANKING

1. Prince of the City
2. The Hill
3. 12 Angry Men
4. Fail Safe
5. The Verdict
6. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
7. Network
8. Long Day's Journey into Night
9. The Offence
10. Murder on the Orient Express

>>211383009
>2018 - 12
we went back in time?

>>211382742 (OP)
/tv/ has a bigger chip on their shoulder than Jane Fonda about HANK

>The justice system can easily fall prey to basic ass shit like biases and group think

I mean that was the entire point, and they're right.

>>211383162
>he doesn't rate Equus

>>211383129
Saar you blew my cover you bastard saar bitch send white bibs now

>if you let shitlibs talk too much they will subvert the law and you will never get justice
this movie makes alot of sense

>>211383634
One of the few Lumet films I haven't seen tbqh. I've watched just over half of his filmography he's my favorite director of all time but some staff is hard to find even torrents for

>>211382903
>He didn't smuggle evidence into the jury room. Jurors cannot introduce evidence.
Legally, jurors are not allowed to “smuggle” evidence into the jury room, but, he didn’t really “smuggle evidence”, he just brought a pocket knife in, in his pocket, and pointed out that the prosecutor admitted evidence that was at least mid leading or questionable, if not outright false.
Basically, the prosecutor admitted perjury, and the case arguably should be thrown out because of that.

>>211383858
In what way did the PROSECUTOR admit perjury? So we have reasonable doubt that the latino kid who wanted to kill his father and had a weapon and couldn't account for the time the murder happened, but the prosecutor couldn't be misled or just mistaken with his statement about the weapon? THAT'S perjury?

>>211384739
It doesn't rise to the level of perjury, but it does throw into doubt the prosecutor's competence. He's either a moron or a liar.

bailiff, arrest this man- he's threatening me with a knife

>>211383162
fail safe #1
network #10

12 Angry Anons
>The guy who says the boy is guilty because he's brown
>The guy who says the movie was a jewish liberal plot to undermine the justice system
>The guy who insists that Fonda overstepped his boundaries by bringing a knife into
deliberation and would have gotten removed
>The guy who meticulously tries to shoot down each and every point brought up by Fonda
>The guy who thinks Fonda was a bad actor who wanted to find the boy not guilty at any cost
>The guy who says that Fonda was the real killer who was trying to make sure an innocent man didn't hang for his crime

>>211383009
Reminder that only 50% of India is online.

>>211382742 (OP)
>Henry Fonda appears on screen
>Liberal bullshit gets spouted

>>211384825
>but it does throw into doubt the prosecutor's competence
how? the prosecution merely pointed out that the knife had a unique look and function to it and that they knew the kid bought a knife just like they found in the body
it wasnt his job to check the street if this knife can be bought anywhere, thats the defense's job to discredit these kinds of arguments. calling this perjury is absolutely retarded

the kid just had a shitty public defender because everyone treated it as an open and shut case anyways

>>211385246
The prosecution made a positive claim that the knife was one-of-a-kind. That positive claim had no backing.

>>211385001
>The guy who says that Fonda was the real killer who was trying to make sure an innocent man didn't hang for his crime
>serial killer with a heart of gold
K I N O I wish this was the film

>>211385319
because it had a carved handle and an unusual switch mechanism, the argument that it is rare/unique is not unreasonable, and as I already said its the defenses job to check up on this immediately. this is what the entire process of "discovery" pre trial is for. the fact that the kids lawyer didnt point this out immediately and henry fonda has to do it is very far fetched.

Dick Tracy 1990 re-enacted the "crime" from 12 Angry Men in setup to frame Dick Tracy as a murderer
https://youtu.be/ne8czB_D-gY?feature=shared&t=118

Watching the scene you'll notice several things in common with 12 Angry Men
>You have the old guys seeing someone run up the stairs
>You have the old guys hear some people yelling
>You got Dick Tracy carrying a gun in the same room as the victim
>You have motive
>Dick Tracy has no alibi
>etc
And you know what??? Dick Tracy was innocent.

All I'm saying is reasonable doubt is a good thing and I think they proved that with the solid discussion they had in 12 Angry Men.

>>211385437
>The prosecution is allowed to make things up without justification and it's the defense's job to debunk it
Not how America works, commie.

>>211385437
a prosecutor who makes an easily proven false statement central to a case would be lucky to finish out their career as a personal injury lawyer. the point of the movie is the kid's public defender simply wasn't doing his job.

>>211385001
>>211385357
>The guy who says that Fonda was the real killer who was trying to make sure an innocent man didn't hang for his crime
literally the plot for Juror No. 2

>>211382742 (OP)
I've likely seen thousands of knives in my life. Maybe come across like 20-50 different switchblades. Never seen a switchblade like the one in 12 Angry Men in any other. Not even close. It's unique.

>>211385507
>>211385538
you niggers obviously have no idea how court process works.
prosecutors don't have to make factually true statements, they only have to prove to the jury ,beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of the crime.
its their job to go at this from every possible angle, if it's a case that has hard evidence then they will lean into this, these are cases with "undeniable" evidence where truth will convince a jury on its own.

at other times its a string of circumstance clues that can paint a pretty convincing picture if the prosecution lays it out, this is why you have a lawyer in the first place, who understands how this game works and can make counter arguments for you or poke holes in the prosecutions line of arguments.

if all cases could be solved with facts, then lawyers wouldnt even be necessary in the first place, in the end it all boils down to making arguments for and against the defendant

I like how they make up some bullshit about the old man to explain him randomly committing perjury for no reason ("uh, he's lonely and wants to feel important!") but then don't even bother trying to justify why the woman would possibly lie

>>211382871
What sort of evidence?
He brought his own knife, you knob

>>211385833
>prosecutors don't have to make factually true statements
go watch this real quick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

the LAPD getting caught in a lie, even if it was an irrelevant lie, is the reason OJ got off. Lies or simply false statements, called out in a court of law, ends the case. everything the prosecution says becomes suspect.

the public defender wasn't doing his job.

>>211383162
Where the FUCK is The Wiz?

Zoomers put your phone down. Fonda's argument about the knife does not involve the prosecution lying about anything.

>>211385898
>the public defender wasn't doing his job.
true, which again plays into the movie's theme of prejudice and poverty because everyone, even the public defender, treated it as an open and shut case. he probably didnt even bother to put in the work for a strong defense because he himself thought the kid was guilty

Powerful.

>>211383066

>>211382742 (OP)
sporadic reminder that 12 angry men was written by a jew

>>211386064
if this was 2025, the guy would get a million bucks on gofundme after his racist rant

>>211386011
The kid was guilty. Just because some of the jurors arrived at the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons doesn't change that. Fonda is an anarchist or nihilist who finagled the other jurors into letting a murdering patricide free

>>211386132
>The kid was guilty
not of first degree murder, which is what he was being tried for. the prosecution was trying to get a heated fight/argument where the kid yells "I'LL KILL YOU" considered premeditated cold blooded murder.

>>211386132
then the prosecution should've provided stronger arguments that can't be eviscerated by a random juror within minutes. nobody in this court did their jobs properly so the movie could happen

>>211386177
>"I'll kill you!"
>later seeks him out and kills him
hmm

>>211385986
>prosecution claims knife is unique
>knife is easily proven to not be unique

if the defense had done this in court, the deliberations would've been 12 seconds. not guilty.

>>211386207
I threaten to kill politicians and internet users all the time. Doesn't make me guilty of murder in the first if I have a heated moment with one.

>>211386294
Did you threaten to kill one to his face and a short while later seek out and successfully kill the one you threatened?

>>211386219
Lol no
Finding half a dozen convenient little explanations to exculpate the defendant doesn't work. If there was just one piece of evidence and it had some circumstantial doubt cast on it fine, but casting weak and barely plausible doubts on all of them? It's the totality that matters. Every time the defense (in this case Fonda) expects the jury to accept these piecemeal arguments of "she wanted to look nice in court without her glasses" or "it's normal to forget a film you just saw" it's just compounding the improbability. The kid is absolutely guilty. Hang him tonight

Hello! I acted in this movie. I was the public defender. The reason I did a "poor" job as some of you guys say is because my client admitted to me he had done the crime. I tried to convince him to admit the crime in front of the judge but the spic wouldn't do it. So since I knew he was guilty I didn't care defending him because he was a piece of shit and deserved the sentance he got. I hope he rot in hell because I also new his old dad. He owed me money which he couldn't payback because he was dead. And now I have to work. I hate my life.

>>211386371
Do you remember each and every film you flipped the channel to halfway through? Because that's how cinemas worked back in the day. You bought a ticket and walked in to whatever movie was already playing on loop. When you'd had your fill of the novelty of moving pictures and indoor air conditioning, you went home. Movies didn't have scheduled start times and you weren't supposed to watch them from start to finish. Boomers were retarded.

>>211386219
The prosecution did not claim the knife was literally the only one in the entire world. The only way the prosecution was being dishonest at all about it being rare in the neighborhood is if A THIRD WITNESS (the guy who sold the knife, who said it was the first type of it that he ever sold) was also lying to frame a random boy

>>211386371
So when you get caught in a lie, how long do you try to talk your way out of it before you realize no one is listening to you anymore?

>>211382742 (OP)
>enters his own evidence on behalf of the defendant during final deliberation
How the FUCK does he not get thrown out for this?

>>211386132
The Fonda family were notorious communist/far left sympathizers. This sort of song and dance where they cry tears over criminals is par for the course. Its a sort of cruel injustice and a form of anarcho-tyranny.

>>211387881
Because it wasn’t introduced as evidence.

>>211388122
He introduced outside evidence (a knife resembling the murder weapon and the one the kid owned) and used this to argue in favor of the defense.

The jury is meant to argue and debate over the evidence and testimony presented during the trial, NOT make their own arguments/present their own evidence for either side.

>>211388244
He didn't introduce evidence. Jurors can't introduce evidence. If a blue thread had been introduced as evidence by the prosecution and he went "lots of people wear blue threads! My shirt has blue threads!", would you accuse him of "introducing evidence" (again, something jurors cannot do)?