Did he do it?

Did he do it?

It doesn't matter, what matters is that there's enough doubt surrounding the case to let him go.

Yes he deserves to die and I hope he burns in hell

yes

>Italian

Yes.

>that look in his eyes

You JUST know.

No, he just has a bad memory.

>his bloody knife was at the crime scene
>shouted his threat for the whole building to hear
>exhonorated by a self-righteous rich twat

Reasonable doubt, dude. Guilty people go free all the time because they have a constitutional right to NOT be incarcerated if there is no case against them and you best not take that for granted

>no DNA evidence
>no witnesses to the crime
>no confession

innocent

>witness puts him at the scene
>juror conducting his own warped investigation to try to and rake up unlawful evidence and persuade his fellow jurors
>let's recreate the crime scene in our fucking juror room that's nothing like the fucking crime scene

The letter of the evidence was inconsistent. Still a perfectly reasonable doubt

so I can be
>witnessed leaving the crime scene
>shout that i'm going to kill somebody
>near a person who was killed using a weapon that is provably my legal property

and i can't legally be charged
neat

I should just scream BANG and shoot random people in the streets from a dead angle and drop the gun
because i'm only fucking present with the fucking murder weapon nearby expressing my intent to kill
but nobody saw me pull the trigger
so i'm innocent

*Puerto Rican
pay attention to the movie next time

except that the witnesses were discredited by the jury in a very sound manner. The old man could not have heard him, and the woman wasn't wearing her glasses, and so could not have been sure it was him.

The shouting to kill was true, but as was also proven in the jury room, people say things they don't mean. Many insults and threats were hurled in the room, yet no one there actually acted on them--so therefore, there is no reasonable reason to use that as a piece of evidence that the boy would have acted on his threats.

Except that the weapon's ownership was proven inconclusive. Those knives were easily available for sale nearby, and the one found near the body did not have to be the boy's.

Now, personally, do I think he's guilty? Yeah, because no one else had a motive. But in the court of law, with the evidence presented, the jury did exactly the right thing in acquitting him, as all the evidence was either faulty or circumstantial.

12 angry anons

When will they fix this movie and have 12 Angry Women?

...

>first scene at the room
>"this young man..."
>12 angry women that lack of dicks in their lives get triggered at the word man
>"Guilty" in unison
>movie ends

Pure kino.

Of course he did

They did, it's called the Bill Cosby Trial

explain your argument.

>implying it wasn't self-defense against an obviously abusive father

This guys just a edge lord fedora and he tricked every one because the defence case was so falwed.

The fair result is a mis-trail because he brought a knife into the room.Thats illigal , you cant do your own research out side the case.Also the whole glassess argument is dumb as fuck.plus you know what "there" like user

haha lmoa u cant evan spull lol
lol @ this guy he cant eevn spoll!

>people arguing over whether or not a suspect is guilty over a fictional case when the case in the movie was obviously written to be flawed
None of you, please, ever do jury duty.

Let that be a nigger on trial instead, He would get an execution date so fucking quick.

This is all that needs to be said.