Ahem

the argument was he couldn't possibly confirm that it was the accused`s voice threatening the victim

We didn't invent DNA yet. That happens after color is invented.

Oh shit! I just remembered I did the same thing and the last letter said something about a warrant! Eh. I'm sure it's fine.

Attached: 1558548351019.jpg (320x320, 22K)

>117094896
Thanks, that question was nagging me and I guess I forgot the point

>living in the country where the cops can bust down your door and arrest you because you didnt do jury duty

Attached: 1548958596568.gif (480x480, 1.39M)

Wasn't it that he couldn't confirm the person he saw exiting the stairwell was in fact the kid fleeing the scene because they believe there's no way he could reach the door in time to see the person leaving?

I've only ever got jury duty once and just ignored it.
Nothing ever happened to me.

Am I a bootlicker for thinking juries are fucking stupid? I’ve always thought we should leave matters of law to those who actually know it, and not enlist random schmucks to determine if someone’s innocent or not

Yes. Also the train would distort any sound in the building let alone someone shouting at the top of his lungs on another floor

that's why lawyers get to screen you before you actually get to sit in the trial, they want to make sure they got the dumbest people possible. you could show up in a nice suit and tie and when the nice lawyer asks you if you understand your responsibility to the law and you say yes, you get to go home.

Assuming the argument hadn't been ongoing. He was able to hear the kid say he would kill his father earlier which they dismissed because apparently it's a common thing to shout at another person.

>Remember, goy, whites are all racist so they need to be replaced

Attached: cancer.png (813x556, 447K)

Arguments are presented by prosecution and defense, not jurors.

Did you miss that part where he presented a duplicate knife?

Hearing him earlier wouldn't place the kid at the scene of the crime

Because he thought something serious was going on, the normal reaction is to jump up and check it out even if there's not much you can do about it.

Two witnesses did however, including one that identified him by sight.

both of those, any kind of civic involvement

>having the ability to judge a mans destiny
>not showing up
Fuck you.Im not an americuck, but I would've go to every jury duty possible.

>the defendant is black
>ok, he's gonna fry
>but sir, he just jaywalked
>F R Y. THAT NIGGA IS GONNA BE MORE BURNT THAN AN IRISH AT THE BEACH

I agree, I've talked to prosecutors and defense attorneys and both just assume juries are mentally retarded and they have to work around it. I think we should have trials be conducted by a panel of judges.

there was only one seething man in that movie. the others were mostly chill

none of that was interesting or funny, you need to go back

fuck that, most judges are activists and will sentence according to their biases

>t. zoomy who has never watched a single second of the movie
>t. zoomy who has never been part of a jury
Fonda's character literally did what he and the other juror's were supposed to do: deliberate.

Most didn't want to be there. One wanted to see the kid burn for personal reasons. The last one, Fonda, was angry that the jury was so quick to convict.

and then when the governor only appoints his buddies?

There was no such test yet, worse the first blood tests could only identify the blood group, so if a suspect happened to share it with the criminal, well shit.

He literally introduced new evidence to other jurors, that's as clear of a case if juror misconduct as you can get. He should have been dismissed then and there.

One of them had tickets to the Yankee game and was going to miss it because of the other angry men

>character literally acknowledges in the movie that he's breaking the law
braindead redditors make this same thread every day thinking they're geniuses for pointing it out

well most people are uneducated about economics and law, uneducated being the key word, as in, they were not taught about it in school, yet our ignorance may have negative consequences on the economy and the law, its execution and creation. We are given permission to drive a car without a license.

I know that feel

This. I only got summoned for jury duty once and it was after I moved halfway across the country so appearing for it was not realistic. I just ignored it.

mini vox populi? could help counter a judges with god complex. A panel of judges would be a waste of resources since judges are more scarce than regular people.

Well buying that specific type of knife was illegal but it if it wasn't for that no moron would've accused him of conducting research.

yeah, the defense was sleepwalking through the trial apparently.

>A movie critiquing the justice system, the flaws in logic, and the fallible human element that can lead to unjust outcomes
>durr why didn't the movie take a strict legalist standpoint and show the juror getting arrest for his misconduct in procedure!

>Just shut your brain off

Then get a bench trial.

That was both interesting and funny. You need to stay here.

The ‘97 version really plays up how flawed and faulty #7’s arguments and personal investigation was.
It replaces “good boy dindu nuffin” with a more level-headed examination of “beyond a shadow of a doubt”
Also the ‘97 version doesn’t show you the defendant’s face, which makes a huge difference

The juror literally acknowledges in the movie he violated the law you mouth breathing retard. And way to completely miss the point
>Just shut your brain off
perfectly described your post

Libtard redditor telling people they need to go back. The irony.

No, what the user you're responding to meant, and what is frequently the meaning of posts that get replies of "shut your brain off lol" is that fiction is FICTION for a reason. The story was written to send a message, or explore a theme, or impart some kind of meaning. That being said, as a result of it being fiction, it does not necessarily need to heed to hard rules of reality precisely as they are, because sometimes the point of the fiction isn't to recreate reality.

samefagging is just embarrassing lad.

If you need to trust one person would you pick a random person on the street or some random person who went to school for several years to do the job you want him to do? I mean, there are morons everywhere but only trusting yourself to be competent doesn't really help you.

see The option is already available to you.

>judge by a jury of your peers
>guy on trial is a black drug dealer charged with rape and assault and has multiple past felonies
>being peers with this person

what did the legal system mean by this?

Can you serve on a jury if you've been convicted of a crime?

idk but youd get filtered out long before the trial If you could