Bro the defendant just happened to yell that he's going to kill his father AND have the same knife as the murder weapon...

that's your pathological victim complex, it has nothing to do with reality

Conservatives are fucking useless. Off yourself you retarded civnat.

There is always some doubt in each individual piece of evidence but the big picture is what matters. Literally everything points towards him and this 'supposing' non sense is a meme argument.

The point is that there's enough holes in the story that the case was faulty

Yes, he might be guilty, but the American justice system means that if there's evidence of doubt, he needs to go free, regardless of what happened. That's the movie's point

fuck off back to plebbit

Reminder that this man is the real protagonist and everyone else is a gullible bleeding heart cuck.

Attached: juror number four.jpg (505x383, 26K)

>conservative who absolutely hates the left

I've read this line a couple of times recently. It's not very convincing, shill faggot.

>Zoomer initiates to this place will unironically believe troll posts like these because they're too ADHD to watch black and white film

Attached: 1544186168745.png (1058x503, 289K)

What are you on about? I watched the film last night and thought it was non sense.

what does this poem have to do with anything

go back to r*ddit

>white people bad

Attached: 1542810236659.png (220x331, 110K)

so you fags actually think to kill a mockingbird is mainly about "white people bad?"

/pol/ users are not normal people with valid or educated opinions, they're more like a cancer or a bacterial infection. Also posts like this: aren't political opinions any more than playing in your own shit is a sport.

this thread rn

Attached: juror number 10.jpg (211x201, 29K)

>/pol/ user gives his two cents
>his
This is why we need feminism.

It’s not doubt, the evidence was proven incorrect and as such there is nothing tying the defendant to the murder. Your big picture theory is literally the point the film argues against. That there is nothing factual and the case is based off of ignorance, opportunism, racism and apathy

Literally got BTFOd by Fonda

You watched it in between checking Yea Forums on your phone, stuffing your obese face with popcorn and trying to ignore Tyrone pounding your mom.
Retarded zoomer.

>normal people with valid or educated opinions

lol elitist thought police asshole

This is why I can't stand these retarded old B&W flicks. They are so full of subtle anti-white propaganda.

Reminder that Fonda literally plays Satan in 12 angry men and uses sentimentality to get a murderer back on the streets.
Not metaphorically, literally Satan.
Prove me incorrect

Attached: jidf detected.png (421x384, 237K)

>Conservatives are fucking useless
Imagine having thoughts like this. You are a cretin

>I'd betcha five thousand dollars I'd remember >the names of the movies I saw! I'm tellin' ya: every single thing that has went on has been twisted... and turned.

this cat hasn't been to Yea Forums in awhile

Attached: twelve.jpg (400x296, 17K)

>Naming all things that characterize boomers
Spotted the seething boomer.

Christ, what a load of bullshit.
>when some other poster brings up politics and a /pol/ user gives his two cents
/pol/tards are the ones bringing up politics in the first place 90 percent of the time
>leftism can only exist in a highly moderated space
clearly this isn't true since /pol/ is constantly whining about it and telling them to leave

>anti-white propaganda
>during 1950s America
did you remember to take your brain medicine this morning?

>It’s not doubt
No, it's doubt.

>the evidence was proven incorrect
No, it was not. Juror 8 made a reasonable case against every point, but he did not "prove" anything.

Just because someone is taking one stance does not mean you have to take the opposing one, user. Jurors are supposed to vote not-guilty unless they are beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Juror 8 gave them all valid reasonable doubt. Did the guy actually do? We don't know. Juror 8 didn't know that the guy didn't do it, he just presented reasonable doubt, and the rest of the jury agreed with him. Because that's all that's required: Reasonable doubt. If there's reasonable doubt, you vote not-guilty.

Yeah those zoomers, well known for not being ADHD tech obsessed cunts

Time to go to bed grandpa. This is the 1st movie I've seen that is 20+ years old and it was fairy tale non sense. Not sure why you boomers like it.

that movie was about the danger of believing roasties and how beta orbiters result in the deaths of innocent people

Attached: 1538149498480.jpg (866x823, 148K)

I genuinely can't tell if this post is ironic or not.

that’s 5 reasonable doubts and you only need one, bucko.

TKAM gains a whole level of subtext when you figure out that Atticus really was a hardcore klan chief.
He just had enough character and respect for law and order that he didn't want to doom the nigger for something he really hadn't done.

>AND was spotted commiting the murder

I love coming to Yea Forums because it reminds me of how smart I am. It's really astonishing just how much smarter I am than you.

>t. Juror 3

or coming to Yea Forums and actually watching the movies these threads are based off of

In certain examples he conclusively disproved the eye witness testimonies

the irony is that a "sequel" to this book was found just a few years ago (turns out it's actually just a first draft but works as a sequel somehow, they might have edited a bit before publication) and atticus finch is actually portrayed as just a career man who wants to make it in his job, he doesn't actually care about niggers and just wants to be a top dog lawyer who wins cases

this has caused, ahem, some controversy as they say

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Set_a_Watchman

Attached: ting ting.jpg (250x250, 8K)

unironically what the fuck were they doing?

Attached: wtf.png (1920x1080, 1.84M)

>durrr she didn't have her glasses on so she couldn't see it
Pure speculation. She could have had those marks from reading glasses, literally no reason not to believe her.

>pol/tards are the ones bringing up politics in the first place 90 percent of the time
Wow m8 citation needed

the director forgot it was a movie not the play

>could have those mark from reading glasses
>so those marks definitely came from reading glasses even without solid evidence
try more skepticism

Ignoring a jackass.

you're literally in a thread where /pol/ brought up politics first you dumb /pol/cuck

Because it's adapted from one of, if not the most celebrated novel of the 20th century you uncultured retard

Think about it.
Hollywood nowadays practically shoves interracial kikery down your throat pretty outwardly but the elements of it practically started in the 1950s or whatever except it was all subtle and creative, like defending jigaboo dindu kids without even showing them like in the 11 Bleeding Heart White Dudes: The Movie.

Reading replies like this just strokes my ego.

I'm making the same meme arguments that juror 8 did. See? It's pure non sense, they let a guilty man walk because
>durrrr suppose this or that

i'd of hanged this kid high before fucking an hour

No, he provided reasonable doubt as to the validity of their testimony. This does not mean the witness didn't see what they said, it just means he provided a POSSIBILITY that they were wrong. Because that's the point: a juror is only supposed to vote guilty if there is, in their opinion, NO possibility that the evidence is wrong; that there is NO possibility that the testimony is not factually correct.

This doesn't mean he wasn't CORRECT about the eye witness being wrong, but rather that he didn't "disprove" their testimony. The witnesses said what they saw, or think they say, and Juror 8 demonstrated that there is enough reason to doubt their testimony. They could very well have seen the kid kill his father, but there was enough reason to doubt their story that it could not be believed beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's the entire point of the ending scene, where 8 and 3 ultimately walk off in sorrow: they haven't disproven anything, they've just come to the conclusion that there is reasonable doubt, so they very well COULD be letting a murderer go free.

Right so that means it's them 90% of the time........
I don't go to /pol/ because it's trash and hard racism is passe, just calling you out for being a whiny faggot

Is the American legal system really like that? How does anyone get put in jail then?

the movie brought up politics you idiot

/pol/ really doesn't exist. It's just Mexican American zoomers being edgy on the internet because that's what the first world entertainment entails really.

Attached: 97273_large.jpg (261x365, 63K)

>guilty until proven innocent
>>/twitter/

Just give up dude, emotional lefty retards don't understand logic

Because this movie isn't how it works irl.
Most jurors accept reasonable doubt if the evidence mostly points to once conclusion or another.

with actual evidence

what if i hate niggers outiside of the vaccume?

Decades ago, I enjoyed this movie. The direction and the actors was fantastic.

I tried to watch this again a couple of years ago, and the movie is very problematic.

Jurors are supposed to vote on the evidence presented. Here we have endless speculation of everything that was not brought up in court. The foreman should have just presented a note to the judge of juror misconduct, and a mistrial would be declared.

Fair enough but you wouldn't say that to their faces, would you user?

>rofl dudes watch how fast I can cause a mistrial
>unzips knife

I could make up any story to create doubt. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it happened. The boy is either the most unlucky person in the world or he did it. I'll take those odds and send him to the electric chair.

(((juror #4)))

No one presented reasonable doubt. Often what is presented is unreasonable.

Notice the eyewitness had sores on either side of her nose? It was night. Maybe she wasn't wearing her glasses. Or maybe she's a librarian who only uses her glasses to read, and has great distance vision. You can't just endlessly argue about things that aren't presented in court.

The US legal system is based on the epistemological assumption that you can't know nuffin. All evidence can be faked, and all testimony can be the result of lies. This ultimately stems from the British legal system around the time of the American Revolution, where both the faking of evidence and bribing or threatening people to give certain testimony were both common. This is, for what it's worth, far easier today than it was back then. Technology exists to not only convincingly fake finger prints, but also voices and faces.

But is it PROBABLE that it is? That's the key point. If it's completely beyond a reasonable doubt that something happened, if no possible REASONABLE reason could be brought forth to contest something, then it can be assumed to have happened. If, however, there is a reason to doubt the validity of a piece of evidence, then a juror is SUPPOSED to vote not guilty. They are told, at the beginning of jury duty
>Your job is to vote guilty if you feel that the evidence supports the notion that the defendant committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
>If, however, you can reasonably doubt that they did it, then you are supposed to vote not guilty

The US legal system is not an inquisitorial one, where the defendant is ultimately put before a fact finding committee, it is adversarial, where one party is trying to make the case that one can, beyond a reasonable doubt, believe the defendant committed the action, and the other is trying to provide reasonable doubt to the claim that they committed the action.

Whether the defendant actually committed the action, in a fact-finding sense, is NOT the job of the jury.

>Dislikes presumption of innocence
Go back to Russia.

none of this hardly matters because most idiots never end up in front a jury. something like 90% of convictions are plea bargains

no but trust me, i'm thinking it all the time

There are actually two points to the movie. The first is yours, the second is that being good at debating and being proficient at speech is infinitely more important than doggedly sticking to your guns. The only fault I could level at the film was that #3 also took everything personally, even if he hadn't he still would have been obliterated by how slippery and clever #8 was. Guy could convince a guy with no legs to buy shoes and a matching pair of pants.

Attached: singing-telegram.gif (320x240, 56K)

>If you actual think the main theme of To Kill a Mockingbird is “white people bad”
How can you think otherwise?

>the big picture is what matters

If you dismantle the components of a big picture there is no big picture

The point is that while there may be some errors in each individual piece to say the boy is innocent means that all the evidence against the boy is just one big coincidence . I can''t believe that.

racial injustice =/= white people are evil

>Notice the eyewitness had sores on either side of her nose? It was night. Maybe she wasn't wearing her glasses. Or maybe she's a librarian who only uses her glasses to read, and has great distance vision. You can't just endlessly argue about things that aren't presented in court.

Reasonable doesn't mean proven. It means significant. There's a significant chance she can't see without her glasses at night. So there's a significant chance her testimony is worthless.

But what about the white power structure and how racism can only be perpetrated by those in power?

Attached: 1369673991743.gif (288x314, 1.13M)

>wut if he didnt do it tho none of us was there you cant know if you wusnt there
face it, he's right, jurys should never convict, there is always doubt

No because it's a legal system and not a justice system.

They threaten to throw the library at you, and when you plea deal because you can't afford an attorney that gives a shit, they slap your wrist so they can save money and time by skipping the trial.

This, reasonable doubt doesn’t mean no doubt.

It was about how the big coincidences were in fact little coincidences, vague, possibly embellished etc

Attached: 1548227718650.jpg (1024x887, 120K)

Reasonable doubt, yes. The point of the fucking movie is that most of the other jurors just act like jackasses and don't (save for #4) really try to make reasonable arguments to remove his doubts.
The movie isn't really about the case.

Threads like these convince me more and more that the majority of Yea Forums is underaged.

The entire idea of a jury is retarded
>hurr let's leave an important decision up to twelve random retards
Imagine doing the same thing with surgery

If they would have had the DNA technology back then that we have today, then there probably wouldn't have been any doubt.

It is unreasonable to bring it up by the jury because it was not discussed. You can't just endlessly speculate about things that were not brought up in trial.

Bring back the star chamber.

but he was a nigger user surely a nigger would never do that

How else would we do it?

I like to imagine this man is actually the devil when I watch this

Unironically this

Qualified experienced judge
>inb4 le u can't leave it up to one person for meme reasons
Three qualified experienced judges

You shouldn't have to, but who said anything about endless? Surely you'd agree to some speculation? What's your stopping point?

I think speculation about the first things you'd ask to a witness on the stand is reasonable. Not questioning a witness that wears glasses about their vision is a facepalm. The defense didn't do their job.

I'd agree with you on speculation about things that are unlikely or with an endless imagination for details. But things like vantage point and visibility are extremely basic facts for the reliability of a eye witness.

I know some of you fags are just epicly meme’ing or whatever but jesus fuck I’m done with this shit. You realize Poe’s Law works both ways, right? Some of you surely aren’t racist and are just making a big funny, but you’re attracting and playing into the hands of actual white supremacists by shitting up Yea Forums with your epic /pol/ deep irony and le trolling libtards epic style.
I can’t fucking believe it, it’s completely bizarre. To Kill A Mockingbird is now unironically being condemned as SJW nonsense. Some of you need to completely fuck off and the rest of you need to honestly ask if you can say, for sure, if you really believe everyone on pol is really joking about “da jews” and “fuck niggers” and all that sort of shit.

Attached: D9D1FEBD-5C97-40C7-80BF-5A258621D5DE.jpg (225x216, 19K)

jury's are actually fine, the problem is dumbasses getting on them, jurors should have a degree from a high tier university and be paid for their time

Wait i'm not the only person who thought this? Could have sworn that was something unique to my schizo tier delusions.

possibly but it’s probably just a totally hilarious ironic joke

Are you thoroughly brainwashed, or just attempting to brainwash others?

Fuck you I reject your mind virus.

what?

Is this actually the guidance given to jurors? Or your interpretation of that based on movie and shows? That's a genuine question.

Why did he believe he was innocent anyway?

film.avclub.com/did-12-angry-men-get-it-wrong-1798232604/amp
This is required reading for any tard who actually thinks there’s any chance the kid was innocent

>it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it
You’re a brainlet if you just believe everything I say, and if you’re afraid to even consider that MAYBE pol might be infected with some really shitty (relatively powerless, but still shitty) people who aren’t “just being ironic” then maybe you believe something you’re trying to deny

>sjwclub
>required reading

He did not “prove” a single piece of evidence incorrect. Not one. Using wild assumptions, evidence that was never entered into the legal record, and actual lawbreaking, he poked flimsy holes in each piece of evidence. That’s not being a fair juror looking for reasonable doubt. That’s being a defense attorney. The kid was guilty.

So you're gonna play the thought police now?
How 1984 of you.

Checked, but I already considered (and held!) your opinion at one point in my life. Thanks for the condescending platitudes, tho.

>and I say this as an american, Donald Trump-supporting conservative who absolutely hates the left

Attached: 1550889692942m.jpg (888x1024, 101K)

You can speculate the defense didn't do their job, but then that is a basis for appeal. You cannot do their job for them. The defense may not have brought such things up during the trial because it would have led the prosecutor to cross examine, and show the defendant in an even more negative light. There are things that the judge forbids before trial, or during bench conferences that the lawyers cannot talk about, but if part of it is brought up by the defense, then all gloves are off.

When I first read To Kill a Mockingbird as a kid I thought the main characters' family was all black so hearing people talk about it was confusing

I’m not telling you what to think or what not to think. If you believe pol is all one big friendly joke that’s your prerogative.
I really like “fuck niggers” threads and the like on Yea Forums because the joke is that hiro and the jannies are money-grubbing faggots (well maybe not the jannies) but pol has imo become a cesspool because some of the losers on there have taken shit like moonman and “the jewish question” seriously.
>muh 1984
Oh what, am I hitler too, for asking you a question?

eh, fair enough
I apologize for any perceived condescension

so do you actually think the message of To Kill a Mockingbird to be “white people bad”?
I mean seriously?

So in the past you thought /pol/ was full of racist shitters, and now you think it isn’t?
How does that work? I always new pol’s more racist side was a big meme and only recently did i begin to see through certain anons’ intentions (post election when the nebulous altright began to attract people like spencer)

Why else do you think it's pushed so hard in school? I had to read the thing three times. Also there's the bonus interracial BMWF propaganda as well, which is the whole reason there's a court case in the first place. White roastie got caught burning coal and cried rape.

The message was "holding race based biases is bad" and popular opinion is that only people in positions of power (i.e. white people) can be racist; so yes, that was the message. Did you even read Go Set a Watchman?

There's tons of anti-White propaganda in general and anti-WASP propaganda in particular in 50's media.

I was the type to religiously watch the Daily Show, 2 time Obama voter, etc. Ironically, the events of his Presidency were a major influence on why I feel the way I do today.

>holy shit a 12 angry men thread
>instantly derailed by /pol/tism
WHY DOES EVERY GOOD THREAD GET FUCKED OVER THIS WAY

Attached: 91433D97-EAE7-4E90-8140-CC7FC9CAF20B.jpg (229x343, 23K)

popular to who, I’m not some retarded SJW who thinks only white people can be racist.
The message was clearly that in like the Jim Crow era justice was stacked against people like Tom Robinson and that shouldn’t be the case. The justice system should treat all people equally, and that means if white people are bad, they are exactly as bad as any other people.
The message was more “either holding race based biases or allowing people like that to make decisions is bad”, and that included anybody as in the 60s there were none of these insane hardlefters who believed some nonsense like “people of color can’t be racist”

Fuck off Harper Lee

>stop noticing things

>daily show
cringe
In all seriousness what do you unironicallt believe then. I’m assuming it’s not “i hate kikes and niggers, white race is superior”.
You realize you can, if you so decide, believe that some portion the left is full of shit and that there are people in the right who are using irony as a mask for being full of some worse shit. I guess that was condenscending but I don’t really know what you actually believe because of the whole “being anonymous” thing, so I’m judging your opinions on your vague responses to my posts, which I figure is the best I can do.

The seeds of what you're talking about were sown during the Soviet revolution, user. That idea was middle aged by the time the Civil Rights Movement rolled around. The whole novel/film, and movement at large in the USA, was telling the people who held the cards they had committed grievous sins intentionally or otherwise, and needed to pay a penance.

Lol. You really are a piece of work. The left has always been way more hate filled, intolerant, and outright fascist than the right by many orders of magnitude.

>However, the film was a box office disappointment.[19][20] The advent of color and widescreen productions may have contributed to its disappointing box office performance.[19] It was not until its first airing on television that the movie finally found its audience.[21]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film)#Reception

>yfw you realise it's only a classic movie because it was constantly repeated on tv, and then shown in schools, and everyone kept getting told it was great and popular

haha

Does this imply that you believe, “i love kikes and niggers, white race is inferior”?

>The film was a financial disaster when it first opened (during a time of colorful widescreen film offerings), but it did receive three Academy Award nominations (with no wins): Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Adapted Screenplay.

gee i thought retarded propaganda getting nominated was a new thing guess not

is not having the the justice system blatantly be shitty to black people really such a terrible price for us whiteys to have to pay?

Careful now, you'll upset the MIGApede.

Attached: 1549947562408.jpg (697x708, 202K)

no, quite the opposite
I literally couldn’t care what a person is, as far as I’m concerned anyone can do anything they want as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else and you can’t really rationalize punishing someone for something they didn’t choose about themselves

In general, I can't claim supremacy of one group. It's more like everyone is a part of a "character class" with certain abilities and limitations. I have seen with my own eyes good and evil people of all races. However, there is a strong movement, which has been long brewing, designed to specifically target and destroy white people; unfortunately, it has reached a critical level in >the current year.

You oughta have more respect, user. You say stuff like that to OP again I'm gonna lay you out

Attached: Juror Six.png (250x187, 25K)

I'd imagine a large amount of classic movies are like that

Considering 13/52, yes. Whites have been forced out of every major city due to the rampant criminality.

BASED GRILL-WING

I’d probably agree with you if you didn’t include “always”
of course such a question gets into how much you can really definitively say about a whole group of people with similar-but-not-identical worldviews, when all I was getting at was that, while the left has a multitude of problems and I’m not denying that, /pol/ isn’t necessarily the bastion of tolerance, nuanced opinions, and kindness either

>anyone can do anything they want as long as they aren’t hurting anyone
Kill yourself civicuck. Your MLK/Stanley Levison nonsense is what made gen Z minority White and now your chickens are coming home to roost.

Attached: 1513150839962-618x374.jpg (618x374, 37K)

There are downsides to this sort of thing as well. In Thailand, for example, one issue is that it comes down to the character of the judge. A more confident and experienced one will wave off any court antics, while one with less of either might allow these things to pass and wind up wasting everyone's time. Some judges also are incentivized to not let things go to court and have the parties settle, meaning that even assault cases can be questionably handled unless one or both parties pushes a certain way.

What are some the best fan theories about this flick?
>juror 3 was the actual killer
or
>fonda knew the suspect beforehand and was trying to protect him

you'd be wrong. those are called 'cult classics' that become popular long afterwards. this movie was a failure, but championed by the academy, then spammed in schools. it's propaganda.

oh, so you are serious.
This is actually really interesting to me, as just saying “y’all whiteys are to blame for black people being criminals” is obviously bullshit, since all people are created equal and therefore white people have no more agency than black people (at least as far as I can tell).
I think this is what the left is getting into when they talk about cultural/systematic racism. I think race conversation is at a standstill because of this more subtle shit: the right and the left are too afraid to ask whether this is because white people, being a majority/plurality, still hold some kind of intangible power that is somehow making blacks criminals, or if perhaps there’s something intrinsic to black culture or even genetics that makes them commit crimes.

I have not made up my mind about this. Race obviously exists and is also obviously made up; the human species is like one giant family tree and it’s clear people who settled in africa vs europe vs asia became more distant relatives and at least slightly grew apart genetically, but it’s also obviously true that black slaves in america had nothing and were treated like shit, to then being treated only slightly less than shit, until most of the kinks got ironed out. Has the pendulum swung too far in the other direction, or not far enough? I don’t fucking know, but I think 13/52 is probably the result of something more nuanced than “black people are destined to be criminals”

>or if perhaps there’s something intrinsic to black culture or even genetics that makes them commit crimes.
lmfao good luck initiating that conversation.

who cares if gen z is minority white? Race exists in the sense that there are some genetic differences that distinguish races, but the lines that separate ‘races’ are clearly pretty arbitrary. We “purebred white people” might, if you go far enough back, be the mixing of neanderthals and homosapiens, or missing link subspecies A and missing link subspecies B, or some mesozoic rat and some other mesozoic rat with a slightly different fur color.

fuck you, i don't even need to justify why i prefer my culture and people

prefer what you want as long as you aren’t telling “your people” or any other people who they can and cannot fuck or raise families with

authortarian faggot trying to tell people how they must behave

>kys for having the opinion that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it’s harmless
>fuck you I have a right to my opinion
????

t. thinks Yea Forums is 1 poster

>What is reasonable doubt
They didn't acquit him. They just prevented a death sentence.

Attached: 1512448958612.png (951x451, 133K)

So you’re an anarchist white supremacist? How will you enforce “no racemixing, EVER” without a gubmint, user?
Is it ‘authortarian’ to protect basic freedom to fuck whoever you want?

>the first and only person to reply to my reply is a totally different person
I mean, I guess it’s possible. Doesn’t seem so likely that anyone but would reply to in that manner, either way very based disingenuouspost

>who cares if gen z is minority white?Zoomers who have to go to schools overrun with spics, but fuck them right? Anything to avoid taking the side of your own people even though every other race self-advocates shamelessly.

>There is no clear agreed upon defining line between tall people and short people, therefore everyone is the same height

race isn’t as simple a distinction as height though, it’s mainly determined by skin color, hair consistency, and a few other factors in facial structure.
I wasn’t saying the distinction doesn’t exist, only that the extraordinary claim that people who happened to go through a few thousand years of evolution in africa also have lower intelligence to boot requires some pretty fucking extraordinary evidence that I’m just not seeing.

Your feeble protests notwithstanding, "always" is correct.

Law student here, OP is a poo poo caca pipi eater hajha

The defense didn't present her being unable to see as an argument. As such theres no reason for the jury to consider it. Doing that goes against our legal system. It's not the jurors job to play defense attorney. It is their job to go over the facts presented by both sides. They're not supposed to make arguments of their own only deliberate on the arguments they were told.

People watch this movie and think it has a good message about our justice system, when in reality it makes a mockery of it.

There is no reasonable doubt based on what the legal experts on the defense gave as reasonable doubt. The juror invented reasonable doubt out of thin air

"Oh maybe the old lady did it and shes lying to cover it up" is as good of an argument as that glasses bullshit.

If the glasses argument was legally sound then the defense would've made it and had to have proven she wore glasses and wasn't wearing them at the scene in order to discredit her as a witness.

They didn't. Discrediting a witness based off your bullshit hunch is not legal. The glasses argument isnt part of the facts in the case

When you pile everything together the juror did I'm pretty sure he broke the law.

Anyone can make up any bullshit speculation to cast "reasonable doubt " as long as he doesnt have to actually prove it.

A guilty man walked free and justice was not served.

Technically the jury can make whatever ruling they want for whatever reason they want.

No the american legal system isnt like that. Jurors are instructed to go over facts given. Thats why jurors are told to sometimes disregard certain things and some things are stricken from the court transcripts. They are ONLY supposed to decide based on facts given. Period. You use the arguments laid out to decide guilty or not guilty. You DO NOT create your own arguments. You DO NOT create your own facts

The juror played the role of a defense attorney and created reasonable doubt based on nothing. If his arguments were valid and legally sound then it's the job of the defense to present them. Not the job of the jury. If the defense didn't present them, then oh well. You decide based on the facts and arguments the prosecution and defense have given, and ONLY that. If new evidence comes forward like the woman actually was blind then the defendant would appeal to a judge to have a new trial based on that new evidence. It's not the jurors place to do what he did. The whole point of arguing in front of a judge is to make sure all your arguments are legally okay to use. He made arguments of his own out of thin air

And why is that, do you think? What motivates the left to act the way that they do?

actually the jury's actions would result in a mistrial

It was not presented in the trial. Not the jurys place to make these arguments

The jury votes on the arguments and facts presented. Theyre not attorneys allowed to make up their own speculation

If new evidence comes forth to cast doubt on the witness then he appeals.

The stopping point for a jury on speculation is zero speculation. If they're doing their jobs right they shouldn't be speculating anything that isnt told to them

I can only speak for the Canadian legal system, but guidance giving to juries here is basically telling them that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is falls on a spectrum between absolute certainty and balance of probabilities with it being much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities and that it isn't enough to believe that the person likely or probably committed the offense. Effectively this means that if the jury is certain the person committed the offense but for some trivial or frivolous possibilities, then they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

>they shouldn't be speculating anything that isnt told to them

pretty sure that's called a firing squad.

Mate that's just retarded. Everything that isn't supported by evidence is an explanatory gap. The defense and the prosecution's story directly contradict.

Reasonable doubt itself requires a hypothetical. You have to speculate a way that the defendant could be innocent, up to a point that's significantly possible.

Ignorance, and/or stupidity.

I suppose this could be a better way to handle that problem

One caveat though. The jury can do whatever the hell it wants.

This is actually true. Even to the point of nullification.

He accepted being wrong like a man though.

Based rational person

Agreed but if I had my way I wouldn't tolerate certain trains of thoughts either. People can get away with a lot, but I refuse to accept moral relativism to its absurdity. And moral relativism is more of a left-wing thing. Definitely left-hand.

It hurts how bad that looks like a man.

You have no idea what reasonable doubt is and you idea how the criminal justice system works