He also picks fights with all the other jurors, he even threatened to kill juror #8 after he called him a sadist. He expressed a lot of anger in his thoughts which changed the way a few jurors thought of the defendant. No one knew till the end when juror #3 started crying and revealed his sensitive side. He looked grumpy and disturbed the whole movie and his emotions finally break lose. The real reason he was being so obnoxious was because he had issues with his teenage son which effected his opinions about teenagers.
Shortly after grieving for the loss of his daughter’s innocence, Carl Lee seeks counsel with the lawyer Jake Brigance. They discuss a similar case where four white men raped a black girl and were set free. Knowing that that these two men could more than likely walk free, Carl Lee takes justice into his own hands and shoots both men down including his childhood friend deputy Dwayne Looney. Carl Lee is immediately arrested and put on trial for the murder of the two white men. As the story continues, Carl Lee hires on Jake Brigance who valiantly accepts the case knowing the dangers and challenges involved in obtaining it.
Despite Atticus’s powerful arguments for Tom’s innocence, the all-white jury convicts the black man. The verdict adversely affects the Finches, especially Jem. When Tom is killed trying to escape from prison, Jem’s struggle with injustice comes to its culmination. Humiliated by the trial, Bob Ewell, Mayella’s father, continually threatens Atticus,
Another characteristic of President Lincoln’s leadership style was that he displayed good moral character. He was honest, fair, sincere and trust worthy. Those who worked under him knew that they could trust President Lincoln because he was consistently fair and was fair and decent both when congratulating and disciplining his subordinates. Another leadership quality that Lincoln possessed that leaders should incorporate into their practices is to set goals and be result-oriented. Setting goals give followers a common end to work towards.
Chance Martin Eng1113 12-2-13 Mr. Ladd Twelve angry men critique. Twelve angry men is the gripping, penetrating, and engrossing examination of a diverse group of twelve jurors ( all male, mostly middle-aged, white, and of middle class status) who are brought together to deliberate after hearing the facts in a seemingly open –and- shut murder trial case. They retire to a jury room to do their civic duty and serve up a just verdict for the indigent minority defendant (with a criminal record) whose life is in the balance. The film is a powerful indictment, denouncement and expose of the trial by jury system. The frightened, teenaged defendant is on trial, as well as the jury and the American judicial system with is purported sense of infallibility, fairness and lack of bias.
12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men Tia Pierce Benedictine University The film 12 Angry Men was not only entertaining but it illustrates many social psychology concepts. The film features a group of twelve jurors who must decide the guilt or innocence of man accused of murdering his own father. Initially eleven of the twelve jurors were set on a guilty vote. Lead by one jurors attempt to convince the others that guilty beyond reasonable doubt had not been proven and that a not guilty verdict might be appropriate and through tense and sometimes heated discussions, gradually, each juror changed their vote to not guilty. The twelve jurors in this film make up a Group.
12 Angry Men persuaded by rhetoric In the movie 12 angry men rhetoric is found throughout the movies as the jurors argue amongst one another as to whether or not a teenage boy is guilty of stabbing his father. As they dig deeper into the case and examine evidence closer the jurors use all three forms of rhetoric, ethos, pathos, and logo’s in order to decide the boys fait. When the jurors first take a preliminary vote it is found that juror number 8 is the only one who votes not guilty. When questioned by the other 11, he reveals to them that he couldn’t possibly vote guilty without first discussing the case, because the guilty verdict would mean the death of teenage boy. This is a great example of the use of the rhetoric, ethos’s because he is basing his decision of not guilty, off of principles and morals rather than evidence shown, and wants to first discuss and way all the evidence of the case, rather than just making a quick decision because it seems that the logical answer would be guilty.
12 Angry Men is a 1957 American drama film. This film is about 12 jurors debating in a very hot and uncomfortable room about an 18 yr old boy who has been accused of stabbing and killing his father. Juror #8 the assumed “protagonist” test the well know police statement, “Innocent until proven guilty.” As they deliberate for hours, different jurors’ characteristics start to appear and begin to bump heads. In this paper, the plot, characters, ideas/thoughts/themes, language/dialog, music and spectacle will be described. The characters in this film were very diverse and were from so many different walks of life.
12 Angry Men When the film began there were symptoms of groupthink evident. However, the viewer got the opportunity to see who was doing the emotional shoving and who was just blowing steam. The bigoted man with the cold was the first on the scene with remarks about people that he saw as "lower" than him. As he was talking, you could see that the man that indeed, did grow up in the lower class part of town was getting very angry at the bigoted man's remarks. Next is the man who really wanted to see the ball game that night and had probably had good tickets.
Firstly, we frame the question, and the question will be “Should Carl shoot the two rapists?” then create the maxim, for Carl’s situation will be “When my daughter was raped then I want to see the justice be done, then I kill the men, otherwise they may just get few years in jail only.” Then, the interesting point is universalizing the maxim, so if Carl kills and everyone can kill. Moreover, we should think about the Carl intention. I think this is really unusual thought about killing and justice connection. So think about the universalizing the maxim for two boys’ action if two boys rape people then everyone can rape others without the guilty. Maybe Carl’s situation in Kantianism is more understandable because intention matter not consequence.