Textbook case of fighting one type of bigoted stereotyping with other type of bigoted stereotyping

Classic movie.

The point of the movie was to show that it wasn't such an open-and-shut case, that there was reasonable doubt. Nothing is quite as simple as it first seems.

That's a good point. Maybe that was the point of the movie.

Wow, lay off the weed man.

First off, the movie isn't based on the idea that the defendant has the odds stacked against him because he isn't white... you obviously never watched the movie if you actually believe that. The movie is based on the idea that jumping to conclusions is irrational. The one racist guy was only ONE juror that had to be convinced, and the poor neighborhood white juror was really just there to support the "there is no poor neighborhood people" claim. You've missed every other scene in the movie!

Like when we combine the evidence from the old man who swears he was able to hear the boy scream "I'm gonna kill ya" over the roaring L train that the eyewitness claims she was able to see through.

The fact that the totally unique knife wasn't unique at all!

The fact that the woman and the old man actually lied, and it was proven they lied.

All the nonsense you're spewing didn't happen... if you only read the cliffnotes so you can pretend to be woke, you might think it happened. But the fact is the only racist here is you.

I recommend, sit down and actually watch the movie, it is like a sherlock holmes mystery where Sherlock explains to watson how all the red herrings were false. Anyone who isn't high or drunk while watching the movie can understand it has nothing to do with bigotry.

I think the Holmes analogy is perfect here. What you're doing is trying to poke holes into Holmes' deductions after the case has already been solved. The woman was proven to have needed to wear glasses, the old man was proven to have been incapable of both hearing the boy yell "I'm gonna kill you" and was proven incapable of having traversed the distance to the door in time to see the boy running down the stairs.

Their testimony was dismissed because they were proven liars. The question was "if she needed glasses, why wasn't she wearing them in court" and you, being the only real bigot here, decided that the deductive leap of "well, maybe she wanted to look good" is why the entire testimony was dismissed rather than the proof that she was a liar.

Just wanted to explain why I put a certain user here on ignore.

There's a huge disinfo troll problem here on MovieChat and other online platforms. The user I ignored outed himself as one of them. I know he's one, because one of their tactics is to make statements deliberately designed to mislead posters unfamiliar with the topic being discussed.

For example, if you've seen 12 Angry Men, you know that the subject of the female witness who had "marks on her nose" started when the jurors began making comments about how she looked and was dressed. Her appearance caused the jurors to start arguing that she must have been too near-sighted to have seen the murder clearly. How do we know she was near-sighted? Because she had marks on her nose. The marks on her nose was a sign that because she was trying to look younger than her age, she must have been hiding the fact that she was wearing glasses.

If you've seen 12 Angry Men, you know that what causes the jurors to second guess an old man's testimony is that he was old and looked disheveled, and naturally must have felt neglected and embellished his account for the attention.

The whole point of my post is that Juror 8 loses credibility in his crusade by using the very tactics he accuses the jurors of being guilty of. In other words, the other jurors are wrong for finding the defendant guilty because of his background, but it's also okay to hold two witnesses' testimonies against them because one was a woman trying to look young and the other was an old man who wore shabby clothing.

This all happened, but the disinfo troll here (brodee) used the classic tactic of screaming and yelling online that this all never happened, for the benefit of posters wandering into this thread either unfamiliar with the movie or maybe forgetting pertinent details about it. And then, to add insult to injury, he's going to keep painting the false picture that I've never seen the movie, when I've not only seen the movie several times over the course of 25 years, I've written two blog entries about it.

Usually, I just kind of laugh at trolls like this, but this kind of tactic, it doesn't get any lower or pathetic.