Did he do it?

Did he do it?

That's beside the point.

lel.

The kid almost definitely did. That trial was a miscarriage of justice and took "reasonable doubt" to comical extremes

>almost definitely did

Can you kill a kid for almost definitely doing something?

No, but the evidence against him is too much to ignore just because some self righteous juror can come up with a way to discredit all of it offhand.

If everything said in the film is true, he's either the unluckiest guy on the planet to get framed like this, or he's guilty
>say one witness lies for attention based on the assumption she can't see
>conclude another is misinformed based on the assumption that he walks too slow
>the clear motivation was just people mishearing the screaming match before the murder
>his lack of an alibi is normal, everyone forgets what they did before a traumatic event, the last normal thing in their life
>the murder weapon that the boy also owned found at the scene is just a coincidence, despite the fact that it could not be located afterwords
If just one of these things was meant to incriminate, you could write it off as too loose to send a kid to prison. But all of it is too much. For each part to be a lie or a setup goes way beyond a reasonable doubt

i thought he did it.
but reasonable doubt, is reasonable doubt.

>12 angry WHITE men


what did they mean by this?

there was at least one jew there, so more like 11 angry white men

This

any good porn parody of this?
asking for a friend

relax it's just a movie. There was enough evidence he didn't do it. there is no message about letting everyone free in real life.

If the evidence is so weak that some juror can dispute it all, then you can't put someone to death over it. People can be very unlucky. Based on the evidence, it's reasonable to assume he might not have done it. If I were in the jury, no way would I put him to death on some shaky testimony and a weapon with no fingerprints that anyone can buy for six bucks.

What about the grip needed to make the wound?

But they don't "dispute" it, they concoct elaborate fantasies based on no scientific evidence to discredit witnesses, then ignore the motivation, alibi and weapon because one juror is hellbent on making this kid innocent

The case didn't have any scientific evidence. It's all based on assumptions and believing witness testimony. The motivation is the kid hated his father so he murdered him. Easy story to believe but may not be the truth. It's possible the witnesses (one of which was a 75 year old man) concocted elaborate fantasies too.

>teacher puts this on for a class of 18 to 20
>i was the only one who watched it
>nobody else liked it so they put on a different one

People see black and white and they can't handle it.

7 angry men was actually the black and white kino that got me into kino viewing.

Jack Klugman was great.

Klugman