# 12 Angry Men



## Tommy Tainant

Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.

Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.

He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.

The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.

Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.

Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.

Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.    

Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.

Great movie - America at its best.


----------



## IsaacNewton

Tommy Tainant said:


> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.




Easily one of the best movies ever made. And it's easy to see how the uber conservatives in the room are driven by emotion, racism, laziness.

I was foreman on a jury a while back and all but two of the people were reasonable. One woman was so angry the judge wouldn't excuse her from jury duty she told us when we got in the jury room she'd vote not guilty no matter what. It turns out that after a couple days of deliberations she also was swayed to consider the evidence rather than her emotion. The defendant was found guilty of one charge and innocent of the other though both decisions at first were split.

12 Angry Men does a great job of portraying 'reasonable doubt'. The part where E.G. Marshall who was unswayable but when asked if the woman would go to bed with her glasses on responded "no, no one wears glasses to bed. I'm convinced".

And notice Henry Fonda says throughout the movie that he doesn't know if the kid is guilty. He wasn't 100% sure of his own opinion either. The whole thing was to show that the standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what should be the deciding factor.


----------



## Jackson

That was a great movie and a riduculous post.  You, my friend are a hater.  You fallacies fall apart when the rest of the jury was open to changing their minds.  Unlike you.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Jackson said:


> That was a great movie and a riduculous post.  You, my friend are a hater.  You fallacies fall apart when the rest of the jury was open to changing their minds.  Unlike you.


I mentioned the jurors in the middle.There were just two or three extremists in the room but, as usual, they made a lot of noise.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

IsaacNewton said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily one of the best movies ever made. And it's easy to see how the uber conservatives in the room are driven by emotion, racism, laziness.
> 
> I was foreman on a jury a while back and all but two of the people were reasonable. One woman was so angry the judge wouldn't excuse her from jury duty she told us when we got in the jury room she'd vote not guilty no matter what. It turns out that after a couple days of deliberations she also was swayed to consider the evidence rather than her emotion. The defendant was found guilty of one charge and innocent of the other though both decisions at first were split.
> 
> 12 Angry Men does a great job of portraying 'reasonable doubt'. The part where E.G. Marshall who was unswayable but when asked if the woman would go to bed with her glasses on responded "no, no one wears glasses to be. I'm convinced".
> 
> And notice Henry Fonda says throughout the movie that he doesn't know if the kid is guilty. He wasn't 100% sure of his own opinion either. The whole thing was to show that the standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what should be the deciding factor.
Click to expand...

People really resent jury duty over here, never been called myself. Touch wood.


----------



## Tank

It's a movie, not reality


----------



## IsaacNewton

Tommy Tainant said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily one of the best movies ever made. And it's easy to see how the uber conservatives in the room are driven by emotion, racism, laziness.
> 
> I was foreman on a jury a while back and all but two of the people were reasonable. One woman was so angry the judge wouldn't excuse her from jury duty she told us when we got in the jury room she'd vote not guilty no matter what. It turns out that after a couple days of deliberations she also was swayed to consider the evidence rather than her emotion. The defendant was found guilty of one charge and innocent of the other though both decisions at first were split.
> 
> 12 Angry Men does a great job of portraying 'reasonable doubt'. The part where E.G. Marshall who was unswayable but when asked if the woman would go to bed with her glasses on responded "no, no one wears glasses to be. I'm convinced".
> 
> And notice Henry Fonda says throughout the movie that he doesn't know if the kid is guilty. He wasn't 100% sure of his own opinion either. The whole thing was to show that the standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what should be the deciding factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People really resent jury duty over here, never been called myself. Touch wood.
Click to expand...


I actually enjoyed it. It is a lot like you see on tv or in movies. After the verdict a few of us stayed behind to talk with both lawyers and have them ask us questions which I've never seen before. The defense told me that he asked the judge to remove me after some comments I made in the courtroom to clarify something someone else had said on the jury. I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this". 

I recommend to anyone to do it at least once.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

IsaacNewton said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily one of the best movies ever made. And it's easy to see how the uber conservatives in the room are driven by emotion, racism, laziness.
> 
> I was foreman on a jury a while back and all but two of the people were reasonable. One woman was so angry the judge wouldn't excuse her from jury duty she told us when we got in the jury room she'd vote not guilty no matter what. It turns out that after a couple days of deliberations she also was swayed to consider the evidence rather than her emotion. The defendant was found guilty of one charge and innocent of the other though both decisions at first were split.
> 
> 12 Angry Men does a great job of portraying 'reasonable doubt'. The part where E.G. Marshall who was unswayable but when asked if the woman would go to bed with her glasses on responded "no, no one wears glasses to be. I'm convinced".
> 
> And notice Henry Fonda says throughout the movie that he doesn't know if the kid is guilty. He wasn't 100% sure of his own opinion either. The whole thing was to show that the standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what should be the deciding factor.
Click to expand...

The language and arguments used by the trumpers is the exact same shit used today. They even mock the immigrant because of his accent and er politeness.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

IsaacNewton said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily one of the best movies ever made. And it's easy to see how the uber conservatives in the room are driven by emotion, racism, laziness.
> 
> I was foreman on a jury a while back and all but two of the people were reasonable. One woman was so angry the judge wouldn't excuse her from jury duty she told us when we got in the jury room she'd vote not guilty no matter what. It turns out that after a couple days of deliberations she also was swayed to consider the evidence rather than her emotion. The defendant was found guilty of one charge and innocent of the other though both decisions at first were split.
> 
> 12 Angry Men does a great job of portraying 'reasonable doubt'. The part where E.G. Marshall who was unswayable but when asked if the woman would go to bed with her glasses on responded "no, no one wears glasses to be. I'm convinced".
> 
> And notice Henry Fonda says throughout the movie that he doesn't know if the kid is guilty. He wasn't 100% sure of his own opinion either. The whole thing was to show that the standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what should be the deciding factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People really resent jury duty over here, never been called myself. Touch wood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually enjoyed it. It is a lot like you see on tv or in movies. After the verdict a few of us stayed behind to talk with both lawyers and have them ask us questions which I've never seen before. The defense told me that he asked the judge to remove me after some comments I made in the courtroom to clarify something someone else had said on the jury. I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".
> 
> I recommend to anyone to do it at least once.
Click to expand...

Maybe when I retire. Couldnt afford to do a few weeks at the rate they pay.


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

Tommy Tainant said:


> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.



It is a brilliant film and one of Sidney Lumet's best films along with "Fail Safe" made in 1964 again with Henry Fonda and "Serpico" made in 1973 and "Dog Day Afternoon" made in 1975 both with Al Pacino. In "12 Angry Men" Lee J. Cobb and E. G. Marshall are also excellent.

I agree with Jackson, there was no need for you to indulge in your political rant and your Trump Derangement Syndrome.


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

IsaacNewton said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily one of the best movies ever made. And it's easy to see how the uber conservatives in the room are driven by emotion, racism, laziness.
> 
> I was foreman on a jury a while back and all but two of the people were reasonable. One woman was so angry the judge wouldn't excuse her from jury duty she told us when we got in the jury room she'd vote not guilty no matter what. It turns out that after a couple days of deliberations she also was swayed to consider the evidence rather than her emotion. The defendant was found guilty of one charge and innocent of the other though both decisions at first were split.
> 
> 12 Angry Men does a great job of portraying 'reasonable doubt'. The part where E.G. Marshall who was unswayable but when asked if the woman would go to bed with her glasses on responded "no, no one wears glasses to be. I'm convinced".
> 
> And notice Henry Fonda says throughout the movie that he doesn't know if the kid is guilty. He wasn't 100% sure of his own opinion either. The whole thing was to show that the standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what should be the deciding factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People really resent jury duty over here, never been called myself. Touch wood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually enjoyed it. It is a lot like you see on tv or in movies. After the verdict a few of us stayed behind to talk with both lawyers and have them ask us questions which I've never seen before. The defense told me that he asked the judge to remove me after some comments I made in the courtroom to clarify something someone else had said on the jury. I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".
> 
> I recommend to anyone to do it at least once.
Click to expand...


I do not support Trial By Jury for the below reason you give:

*"I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".*

All trials should be by Judicial Panel comprised of legal professionals and not lay persons who have no education or training in legal situations.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Lucy Hamilton said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a brilliant film and one of Sidney Lumet's best films along with "Fail Safe" made in 1964 again with Henry Fonda and "Serpico" made in 1973 and "Dog Day Afternoon" made in 1975 both with Al Pacino. In "12 Angry Men" Lee J. Cobb and E. G. Marshall are also excellent.
> 
> I agree with Jackson, there was no need for you to indulge in your political rant and your Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Click to expand...

I havent seen Fail Safe in over 40 years. Think I might track it down.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Lucy Hamilton said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily one of the best movies ever made. And it's easy to see how the uber conservatives in the room are driven by emotion, racism, laziness.
> 
> I was foreman on a jury a while back and all but two of the people were reasonable. One woman was so angry the judge wouldn't excuse her from jury duty she told us when we got in the jury room she'd vote not guilty no matter what. It turns out that after a couple days of deliberations she also was swayed to consider the evidence rather than her emotion. The defendant was found guilty of one charge and innocent of the other though both decisions at first were split.
> 
> 12 Angry Men does a great job of portraying 'reasonable doubt'. The part where E.G. Marshall who was unswayable but when asked if the woman would go to bed with her glasses on responded "no, no one wears glasses to be. I'm convinced".
> 
> And notice Henry Fonda says throughout the movie that he doesn't know if the kid is guilty. He wasn't 100% sure of his own opinion either. The whole thing was to show that the standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what should be the deciding factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People really resent jury duty over here, never been called myself. Touch wood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually enjoyed it. It is a lot like you see on tv or in movies. After the verdict a few of us stayed behind to talk with both lawyers and have them ask us questions which I've never seen before. The defense told me that he asked the judge to remove me after some comments I made in the courtroom to clarify something someone else had said on the jury. I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".
> 
> I recommend to anyone to do it at least once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not support Trial By Jury for the below reason you give:
> 
> *"I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".*
> 
> All trials should be by Judicial Panel comprised of legal professionals and not lay persons who have no education or training in legal situations.
Click to expand...

Magna Carta ?


----------



## IsaacNewton

Tommy Tainant said:


> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a brilliant film and one of Sidney Lumet's best films along with "Fail Safe" made in 1964 again with Henry Fonda and "Serpico" made in 1973 and "Dog Day Afternoon" made in 1975 both with Al Pacino. In "12 Angry Men" Lee J. Cobb and E. G. Marshall are also excellent.
> 
> I agree with Jackson, there was no need for you to indulge in your political rant and your Trump Derangement Syndrome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I havent seen Fail Safe in over 40 years. Think I might track it down.
Click to expand...


I agree Fail Safe is another great movie. I never miss either one, Fail Safe or 12 when they are on. I also recommend Dr Strangelove by Stanley Kubrick. I believe the cockpit of the B-52 in Dr Strangelove was built entirely from one photo of a B-52 cockpit and the production crew using a B-29 for reference as well. The 'movie' cockpit of the B-52 was so accurate even though it was built mostly by creative people guessing that Kubrick got a call from the authorities asking if they had used real blueprints or other material. Kubrick called his production crew and said "I hope you haven't used any restricted pictures or material to build that thing". They hadn't. 

And more recently War Games is a great send up of these earlier films though more whimsical.


----------



## 2aguy

Tommy Tainant said:


> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.




Yes.....they let a guilty killer go free....and you applaud it...

https://film.avclub.com/did-12-angry-men-get-it-wrong-1798232604

So what if they probably let a guilty man go free?

Clearly, Reginald Rose, who wrote the original teleplay as well as the film script, intended the unnamed defendant—we’ll just call him The Kid, as the jurors generally do—to be innocent. There isn’t some hidden twist that nobody’s ever noticed until now. But in attempting to make the scenario as dramatic as possible, Rose inadvertently and unwittingly made it almost impossible for The Kid not to have killed his old man. 

------

No. What ensures The Kid’s guilt for practical purposes, though neither the prosecutor nor any of the jurors ever mentions it (and Rose apparently never considered it), is the sheer improbability that _all _the evidence is erroneous. You’d have to be the jurisprudential inverse of a national lottery winner to face so many apparently damning coincidences and misidentifications.


----------



## 2aguy

And more on why the kid was guilty.....

Here’s what has to be true in order for The Kid to be innocent of the murder:


He coincidentally yelled “I’m gonna kill you!” at his father a few hours before someone else killed him. How many times in your life have you screamed that at your own father? Is it a regular thing?

AND


The elderly man down the hall, as suggested by Juror No. 9 (Joseph Sweeney), didn’t actually see The Kid, but claimed he had, or perhaps convinced himself he had, out of a desire to feel important.
AND


The woman across the street saw only a blur without her glasses, yet positively identified The Kid, again, either deliberately lying or confabulating.

AND


The Kid really did go to the movies, but was so upset by the death of his father and his arrest that all memory of what he saw vanished from his head. (Let’s say you go see _Magic Mike_ tomorrow, then come home to find a parent murdered. However traumatized you are, do you consider it credible that you would be able to offer _no description whatsoever _of the movie? Not even “male strippers”?)
AND


Somebody else killed The Kid’s father, for reasons completely unknown, but left behind no trace of his presence whatsoever.

AND


The actual murderer coincidentally used the same knife that The Kid owns.
AND


The Kid coincidentally happened to lose his knife _within hours of his father being stabbed to death with an identical knife._

The last one alone convicts him, frankly. That’s a million-to-one shot, conservatively. In the movie, Fonda dramatically produces a duplicate switchblade that he’d bought in The Kid’s neighborhood (which, by the way, would get him disqualified if the judge learned about it, as jurors aren’t allowed to conduct their own private investigations during a trial), by way of demonstrating that it’s hardly unique. But come on. I don’t own a switchblade, but I do own a wallet, which I think I bought at Target or Ross or some similar chain—I’m sure there are thousands of other guys walking around with the same wallet. But the odds that one of those people will happen to kill my father are minute, to put it mildly. And the odds that I’ll also happen to lose my wallet the same day that a stranger leaves his own, identical wallet behind at the scene of my father’s murder (emptied of all identification, I guess, for this analogy to work; cut me some slack, you get the idea) are essentially zero. Coincidences that wild do happen—there’s a recorded case of two brothers who were killed a year apart on the same street, each at age 17, each while riding the same bike, each run over by the same cab driver, _carrying the same passenger_—but they don’t happen frequently enough for us to seriously consider them as exculpatory evidence. If something that insanely freakish implicates you, you’re just screwed, really.


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

Tommy Tainant said:


> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a brilliant film and one of Sidney Lumet's best films along with "Fail Safe" made in 1964 again with Henry Fonda and "Serpico" made in 1973 and "Dog Day Afternoon" made in 1975 both with Al Pacino. In "12 Angry Men" Lee J. Cobb and E. G. Marshall are also excellent.
> 
> I agree with Jackson, there was no need for you to indulge in your political rant and your Trump Derangement Syndrome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I havent seen Fail Safe in over 40 years. Think I might track it down.
Click to expand...


It's an excellent film, available on Amazon very cheap. Another excellent film is "Seven Days In May"

*"Seven Days in May* *is a 1964 American political thriller motion picture about a military-political cabal's planned takeover of the United States government in reaction to the president's negotiation of a disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union. Directed by John Frankenheimer, it stars Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Fredric March, and Ava Gardner. The screenplay was written by Rod Serling based on the novel of the same name by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II, published in September 1962."
*
Seven Days in May - Wikipedia


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

Tommy Tainant said:


> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily one of the best movies ever made. And it's easy to see how the uber conservatives in the room are driven by emotion, racism, laziness.
> 
> I was foreman on a jury a while back and all but two of the people were reasonable. One woman was so angry the judge wouldn't excuse her from jury duty she told us when we got in the jury room she'd vote not guilty no matter what. It turns out that after a couple days of deliberations she also was swayed to consider the evidence rather than her emotion. The defendant was found guilty of one charge and innocent of the other though both decisions at first were split.
> 
> 12 Angry Men does a great job of portraying 'reasonable doubt'. The part where E.G. Marshall who was unswayable but when asked if the woman would go to bed with her glasses on responded "no, no one wears glasses to be. I'm convinced".
> 
> And notice Henry Fonda says throughout the movie that he doesn't know if the kid is guilty. He wasn't 100% sure of his own opinion either. The whole thing was to show that the standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what should be the deciding factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People really resent jury duty over here, never been called myself. Touch wood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually enjoyed it. It is a lot like you see on tv or in movies. After the verdict a few of us stayed behind to talk with both lawyers and have them ask us questions which I've never seen before. The defense told me that he asked the judge to remove me after some comments I made in the courtroom to clarify something someone else had said on the jury. I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".
> 
> I recommend to anyone to do it at least once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not support Trial By Jury for the below reason you give:
> 
> *"I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".*
> 
> All trials should be by Judicial Panel comprised of legal professionals and not lay persons who have no education or training in legal situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Magna Carta ?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry I am not that up on a lot of the Magna Carta, are you saying that it ensures Trial By Jury or what?


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

Tommy Tainant said:


> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a brilliant film and one of Sidney Lumet's best films along with "Fail Safe" made in 1964 again with Henry Fonda and "Serpico" made in 1973 and "Dog Day Afternoon" made in 1975 both with Al Pacino. In "12 Angry Men" Lee J. Cobb and E. G. Marshall are also excellent.
> 
> I agree with Jackson, there was no need for you to indulge in your political rant and your Trump Derangement Syndrome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I havent seen Fail Safe in over 40 years. Think I might track it down.
Click to expand...


If you like these old films, I have a Film thread that I start in January 2016 that has many good posts in it although no posts in two months I notice, so if you like these old films and want to post about them then do so: 

Why don't people watch films?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

2aguy said:


> And more on why the kid was guilty.....
> 
> Here’s what has to be true in order for The Kid to be innocent of the murder:
> 
> 
> He coincidentally yelled “I’m gonna kill you!” at his father a few hours before someone else killed him. How many times in your life have you screamed that at your own father? Is it a regular thing?
> 
> AND
> 
> 
> The elderly man down the hall, as suggested by Juror No. 9 (Joseph Sweeney), didn’t actually see The Kid, but claimed he had, or perhaps convinced himself he had, out of a desire to feel important.
> AND
> 
> 
> The woman across the street saw only a blur without her glasses, yet positively identified The Kid, again, either deliberately lying or confabulating.
> 
> AND
> 
> 
> The Kid really did go to the movies, but was so upset by the death of his father and his arrest that all memory of what he saw vanished from his head. (Let’s say you go see _Magic Mike_ tomorrow, then come home to find a parent murdered. However traumatized you are, do you consider it credible that you would be able to offer _no description whatsoever _of the movie? Not even “male strippers”?)
> AND
> 
> 
> Somebody else killed The Kid’s father, for reasons completely unknown, but left behind no trace of his presence whatsoever.
> 
> AND
> 
> 
> The actual murderer coincidentally used the same knife that The Kid owns.
> AND
> 
> 
> The Kid coincidentally happened to lose his knife _within hours of his father being stabbed to death with an identical knife._
> 
> The last one alone convicts him, frankly. That’s a million-to-one shot, conservatively. In the movie, Fonda dramatically produces a duplicate switchblade that he’d bought in The Kid’s neighborhood (which, by the way, would get him disqualified if the judge learned about it, as jurors aren’t allowed to conduct their own private investigations during a trial), by way of demonstrating that it’s hardly unique. But come on. I don’t own a switchblade, but I do own a wallet, which I think I bought at Target or Ross or some similar chain—I’m sure there are thousands of other guys walking around with the same wallet. But the odds that one of those people will happen to kill my father are minute, to put it mildly. And the odds that I’ll also happen to lose my wallet the same day that a stranger leaves his own, identical wallet behind at the scene of my father’s murder (emptied of all identification, I guess, for this analogy to work; cut me some slack, you get the idea) are essentially zero. Coincidences that wild do happen—there’s a recorded case of two brothers who were killed a year apart on the same street, each at age 17, each while riding the same bike, each run over by the same cab driver, _carrying the same passenger_—but they don’t happen frequently enough for us to seriously consider them as exculpatory evidence. If something that insanely freakish implicates you, you’re just screwed, really.




He doesnt have to prove anything. The prosecution has to prove he did it. And they couldnt.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Lucy Hamilton said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easily one of the best movies ever made. And it's easy to see how the uber conservatives in the room are driven by emotion, racism, laziness.
> 
> I was foreman on a jury a while back and all but two of the people were reasonable. One woman was so angry the judge wouldn't excuse her from jury duty she told us when we got in the jury room she'd vote not guilty no matter what. It turns out that after a couple days of deliberations she also was swayed to consider the evidence rather than her emotion. The defendant was found guilty of one charge and innocent of the other though both decisions at first were split.
> 
> 12 Angry Men does a great job of portraying 'reasonable doubt'. The part where E.G. Marshall who was unswayable but when asked if the woman would go to bed with her glasses on responded "no, no one wears glasses to be. I'm convinced".
> 
> And notice Henry Fonda says throughout the movie that he doesn't know if the kid is guilty. He wasn't 100% sure of his own opinion either. The whole thing was to show that the standard of 'reasonable doubt' is what should be the deciding factor.
> 
> 
> 
> People really resent jury duty over here, never been called myself. Touch wood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually enjoyed it. It is a lot like you see on tv or in movies. After the verdict a few of us stayed behind to talk with both lawyers and have them ask us questions which I've never seen before. The defense told me that he asked the judge to remove me after some comments I made in the courtroom to clarify something someone else had said on the jury. I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".
> 
> I recommend to anyone to do it at least once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not support Trial By Jury for the below reason you give:
> 
> *"I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".*
> 
> All trials should be by Judicial Panel comprised of legal professionals and not lay persons who have no education or training in legal situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Magna Carta ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry I am not that up on a lot of the Magna Carta, are you saying that it ensures Trial By Jury or what?
Click to expand...

Yes. It is there to curb the power of the state.


----------



## fncceo

Tommy Tainant said:


> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.



Is it legal in the UK to watch a movie that doesn’t star Michael Caine?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

fncceo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it legal in the UK to watch a movie that doesn’t star Michael Caine?
Click to expand...

He was juror #6


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

fncceo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it legal in the UK to watch a movie that doesn’t star Michael Caine?
Click to expand...


Michael Caine has made some very good films, two of my favourites "The Ipcress File" made in 1965 and "Get Carter" made in 1971 I do not like when they re make films that the original is already great they did this with "Get Carter" and as if that was not horrific enough they had Sylvester Stallone as Jack Carter whoever had the idea to re make the film should be taken out and shot.

The Ipcress File (film) - Wikipedia

Get Carter - Wikipedia


----------



## rightwinger

Fonda was great as the lone juror

I also like the old man


----------



## Skull Pilot

Thanks for reminding me I have fucking jury duty in March.

You all might like it and think you're being a good citizen and all that shit but I realize it's a complete waste of time.  I would be better serving the community by tending to my business and the people we serve than wasting my time on a trial for some piece of shit criminal.


----------



## Skull Pilot

At this point in time I think we should move to a professional jury system.  With all the technological and scientific means of collecting and analyzing evidence I think it would be prudent to have people who can actually understand the law and the science rather than a dozen people who can't sit on a jury


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

rightwinger said:


> Fonda was great as the lone juror
> 
> I also like the old man



The old man was an actor called Joseph Sweeney he didn't make many films, he mainly was a stage actor, like one of my favourite actresses and people Tallulah Bankhead didn't make many films but did THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of plays on stage. 

The film originally was on American television as a play not with Henry Fonda though it was the actor Robert Cummings, a very good actor at this moment I can only think of one film he was in Alfred Hitchcock's "Dial M For Murder" made in 1954 but he made other films, he might have been good for the television play but I am not sure he would have been as good as Henry Fonda for the part of Juror 8 in the film so whoever cast the film made the correct choice.


----------



## Meathead

Except for gender and race, today we would call them an inner-city jury, like the one that found OJ not guilty.


----------



## rightwinger

Lucy Hamilton said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fonda was great as the lone juror
> 
> I also like the old man
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The old man was an actor called Joseph Sweeney he didn't make many films, he mainly was a stage actor, like one of my favourite actresses and people Tallulah Bankhead didn't make many films but did THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of plays on stage.
> 
> The film originally was on American television as a play not with Henry Fonda though it was the actor Robert Cummings, a very good actor at this moment I can only think of one film he was in Alfred Hitchcock's "Dial M For Murder" made in 1954 but he made other films, he might have been good for the television play but I am not sure he would have been as good as Henry Fonda for the part of Juror 8 in the film so whoever cast the film made the correct choice.
Click to expand...


I remember Bob Cummings on his TV show Love That Bob with Schultzy (Alice from Brady Bunch) and a Basset Hound


----------



## Coyote

Lucy Hamilton said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a brilliant film and one of Sidney Lumet's best films along with "Fail Safe" made in 1964 again with Henry Fonda and "Serpico" made in 1973 and "Dog Day Afternoon" made in 1975 both with Al Pacino. In "12 Angry Men" Lee J. Cobb and E. G. Marshall are also excellent.
> 
> I agree with Jackson, there was no need for you to indulge in your political rant and your Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Click to expand...

I saw Failsafe, back to back with Dr. Strangeglove....excellent movies.


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

rightwinger said:


> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fonda was great as the lone juror
> 
> I also like the old man
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The old man was an actor called Joseph Sweeney he didn't make many films, he mainly was a stage actor, like one of my favourite actresses and people Tallulah Bankhead didn't make many films but did THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of plays on stage.
> 
> The film originally was on American television as a play not with Henry Fonda though it was the actor Robert Cummings, a very good actor at this moment I can only think of one film he was in Alfred Hitchcock's "Dial M For Murder" made in 1954 but he made other films, he might have been good for the television play but I am not sure he would have been as good as Henry Fonda for the part of Juror 8 in the film so whoever cast the film made the correct choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember Bob Cummings on his TV show Love That Bob with Schultzy (Alice from Brady Bunch) and a Basset Hound
Click to expand...


I have never heard of that programme or Brady Bunch, I'll have to Google.


----------



## rightwinger

Lucy Hamilton said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fonda was great as the lone juror
> 
> I also like the old man
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The old man was an actor called Joseph Sweeney he didn't make many films, he mainly was a stage actor, like one of my favourite actresses and people Tallulah Bankhead didn't make many films but did THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of plays on stage.
> 
> The film originally was on American television as a play not with Henry Fonda though it was the actor Robert Cummings, a very good actor at this moment I can only think of one film he was in Alfred Hitchcock's "Dial M For Murder" made in 1954 but he made other films, he might have been good for the television play but I am not sure he would have been as good as Henry Fonda for the part of Juror 8 in the film so whoever cast the film made the correct choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember Bob Cummings on his TV show Love That Bob with Schultzy (Alice from Brady Bunch) and a Basset Hound
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never heard of that programme or Brady Bunch, I'll have to Google.
Click to expand...


You never heard of The Brady Bunch?

What country are you from?


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

Coyote said:


> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watched this yesterday and its such a great movie. You can enjoy it as a drama but I think it is also a very political film that could be remade today.
> 
> Minority kid from a rough part of town is on trial for killing his father.
> 
> He gets zero help from the public defender and so the jury meet to decide his fate.
> 
> The conservative majority in the room want to shoot the kid before they fry him. It looks grim for the youngster but one man , Henry Fonda, stands in his corner and fights his cause.
> 
> Fonda is the archetypal Liberal. Educated,measured and determined to examine the facts of the case.
> His opponents, were rough,stupid and violent racists who would probably be Trump supporters today.
> 
> Fonda destroys their arguments ,primarily because he is brighter than they are. Those jurymen in the middle were more inclined to listen to his arguments than those put forward by the trumptards.
> 
> Ultimately good triumphs over evil because ,deep down, people are good and messages of hate only have a limited shelf life.
> 
> Trump and all his alt right, KKK trash are just a blip,not the future.
> 
> Great movie - America at its best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a brilliant film and one of Sidney Lumet's best films along with "Fail Safe" made in 1964 again with Henry Fonda and "Serpico" made in 1973 and "Dog Day Afternoon" made in 1975 both with Al Pacino. In "12 Angry Men" Lee J. Cobb and E. G. Marshall are also excellent.
> 
> I agree with Jackson, there was no need for you to indulge in your political rant and your Trump Derangement Syndrome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I saw Failsafe, back to back with Dr. Strangeglove....excellent movies.
Click to expand...


Here is the original trailer for "Fail Safe" made in 1964 and directed by Sidney Lumet and featuring Henry Fonda, Walter Matthau, Dan O'Herlihy and Larry Hagman.

The situation and end scenario in this film is something we ALL should be doing our best to avoid happening, only the insane want WWIII and only the insane want Nuclear War because NOBODY is coming out of that alive.


*"Fail Safe" the synopsis:*

*"During a VIP visit to the headquarters of the Strategic Air Command (SAC), at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska, the Air Force's early warning radar indicates that an unidentified aircraft has intruded into American airspace. Shortly after, the "intruder" is identified as an off-course civilian airliner and the alert is cancelled, but a computer error causes one American bomber group to receive orders for an attack on Moscow. Attempts to rescind this order fail because a new Soviet countermeasure jams American radio communications. With his orders apparently confirmed, Colonel Jack Grady (Edward Binns), the US bomber group's commander, commands the group to continue to their target.

The President of the United States (Henry Fonda) and his advisers attempt to recall the group or shoot them down. Communications are opened with the Soviet Chairman in which mistakes on both sides (the orders to the American bombers, and the Soviet jamming) are acknowledged. The jamming ceases, but the crew follows their training in dismissing the counter-orders they receive as a Soviet ruse.

The President struggles to find a resolution that will stop the Soviet Union from counterattacking; if he fails, an all-out nuclear holocaust will be unavoidable. He offers to sacrifice an American target to appease the Soviets, and he orders an American bomber towards New York City. The President's advisers in the Pentagon discover that in doing so, the President is sacrificing the First Lady, who is visiting New York City.

A single American bomber reaches Moscow and destroys it. The President orders General Black (Dan O'Herlihy), whose wife and children live in New York, to make a corresponding nuclear attack on New York, using the Empire State Building as ground zero. After releasing the bombs, Black kills himself. The last moments of the film show images of people in New York going about their daily lives, unaware of the coming disaster."*

Fail Safe (1964 film) - Wikipedia


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

rightwinger said:


> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fonda was great as the lone juror
> 
> I also like the old man
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The old man was an actor called Joseph Sweeney he didn't make many films, he mainly was a stage actor, like one of my favourite actresses and people Tallulah Bankhead didn't make many films but did THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of plays on stage.
> 
> The film originally was on American television as a play not with Henry Fonda though it was the actor Robert Cummings, a very good actor at this moment I can only think of one film he was in Alfred Hitchcock's "Dial M For Murder" made in 1954 but he made other films, he might have been good for the television play but I am not sure he would have been as good as Henry Fonda for the part of Juror 8 in the film so whoever cast the film made the correct choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember Bob Cummings on his TV show Love That Bob with Schultzy (Alice from Brady Bunch) and a Basset Hound
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never heard of that programme or Brady Bunch, I'll have to Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never heard of The Brady Bunch?
> 
> What country are you from?
Click to expand...


No never have heard of. Austria, we never as I can remember have had any of those programmes imported to us, I always have to Google many American programmes that people mention at this forum also many British ones but especially old things.


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

rightwinger said:


> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fonda was great as the lone juror
> 
> I also like the old man
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The old man was an actor called Joseph Sweeney he didn't make many films, he mainly was a stage actor, like one of my favourite actresses and people Tallulah Bankhead didn't make many films but did THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of plays on stage.
> 
> The film originally was on American television as a play not with Henry Fonda though it was the actor Robert Cummings, a very good actor at this moment I can only think of one film he was in Alfred Hitchcock's "Dial M For Murder" made in 1954 but he made other films, he might have been good for the television play but I am not sure he would have been as good as Henry Fonda for the part of Juror 8 in the film so whoever cast the film made the correct choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember Bob Cummings on his TV show Love That Bob with Schultzy (Alice from Brady Bunch) and a Basset Hound
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never heard of that programme or Brady Bunch, I'll have to Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never heard of The Brady Bunch?
> 
> What country are you from?
Click to expand...


Here is "The Brady Bunch" I also reading the cast have never heard of any of the actors, I will often hear of an actor and know them from a film but this cast I hear of nobody.

The Brady Bunch - Wikipedia


----------



## rightwinger

Lucy Hamilton said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fonda was great as the lone juror
> 
> I also like the old man
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The old man was an actor called Joseph Sweeney he didn't make many films, he mainly was a stage actor, like one of my favourite actresses and people Tallulah Bankhead didn't make many films but did THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of plays on stage.
> 
> The film originally was on American television as a play not with Henry Fonda though it was the actor Robert Cummings, a very good actor at this moment I can only think of one film he was in Alfred Hitchcock's "Dial M For Murder" made in 1954 but he made other films, he might have been good for the television play but I am not sure he would have been as good as Henry Fonda for the part of Juror 8 in the film so whoever cast the film made the correct choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember Bob Cummings on his TV show Love That Bob with Schultzy (Alice from Brady Bunch) and a Basset Hound
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never heard of that programme or Brady Bunch, I'll have to Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never heard of The Brady Bunch?
> 
> What country are you from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No never have heard of. Austria, we never as I can remember have had any of those programmes imported to us, I always have to Google many American programmes that people mention at this forum also many British ones but especially old things.
Click to expand...


Austria?
You must have really enjoyed Crocodile Dundee


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Skull Pilot said:


> At this point in time I think we should move to a professional jury system.  With all the technological and scientific means of collecting and analyzing evidence I think it would be prudent to have people who can actually understand the law and the science rather than a dozen people who can't sit on a jury


Its the thin end of the wedge though. The argument would be that if you aint bright enough to sit on a jury then how can you be bright enough to vote ?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Tommy Tainant said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point in time I think we should move to a professional jury system.  With all the technological and scientific means of collecting and analyzing evidence I think it would be prudent to have people who can actually understand the law and the science rather than a dozen people who can't sit on a jury
> 
> 
> 
> Its the thin end of the wedge though. The argument would be that if you aint bright enough to sit on a jury then how can you be bright enough to vote ?
Click to expand...

Voting for a politician does not have the same consequences as sitting on a jury and deciding the fate of a person


----------



## P F Tinmore

Tommy Tainant said:


> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> People really resent jury duty over here, never been called myself. Touch wood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually enjoyed it. It is a lot like you see on tv or in movies. After the verdict a few of us stayed behind to talk with both lawyers and have them ask us questions which I've never seen before. The defense told me that he asked the judge to remove me after some comments I made in the courtroom to clarify something someone else had said on the jury. I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".
> 
> I recommend to anyone to do it at least once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not support Trial By Jury for the below reason you give:
> 
> *"I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".*
> 
> All trials should be by Judicial Panel comprised of legal professionals and not lay persons who have no education or training in legal situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Magna Carta ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry I am not that up on a lot of the Magna Carta, are you saying that it ensures Trial By Jury or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. It is there to curb the power of the state.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the power to convict should not be the same power that can accuse.

Virtually all of our local judges are former prosecutors. There is a separation of powers but not a separation of attitude.


----------



## IsaacNewton

P F Tinmore said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy Hamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually enjoyed it. It is a lot like you see on tv or in movies. After the verdict a few of us stayed behind to talk with both lawyers and have them ask us questions which I've never seen before. The defense told me that he asked the judge to remove me after some comments I made in the courtroom to clarify something someone else had said on the jury. I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".
> 
> I recommend to anyone to do it at least once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not support Trial By Jury for the below reason you give:
> 
> *"I was like "what do you want, we aren't pros here most of us have never done this".*
> 
> All trials should be by Judicial Panel comprised of legal professionals and not lay persons who have no education or training in legal situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Magna Carta ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry I am not that up on a lot of the Magna Carta, are you saying that it ensures Trial By Jury or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. It is there to curb the power of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the power to convict should not be the same power that can accuse.
> 
> Virtually all of our local judges are former prosecutors. There is a separation of powers but not a separation of attitude.
Click to expand...


Odd isn't it. The very people that should never be given power over others are given power over others lives.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

During the troubles in Ulster they found it impossible to get decisions from juries due to the sectarian nature of the society. The catholics would vote one way and the proddies another.
They introduced "diplock" courts which did away with juries and it was hugely unpopular.


----------



## my2¢

I've watched _12 Angry Men_ a few times, not lately though.  Good movie.  One questionability aspect I had with it was wondering about Fonda's character when he did a little bit of investigating on his own about the knife.  Is that, as you might say, kosher?

A Fonda film in a somewhat similar vain is the western _The Oxford Incident_.  For me that's the one film that always comes to mind whenever there is a highly publicized trial going on.  It inspires me to think for myself and not just go along with popular opinion.


----------

