12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men

In this movie I thought that juror number eight was the most thought out juror. He never said the boy was not guilty at first, he just said he wanted to talk about it instead of jumping to conclusion. The first example of fought in evidence was the train and how it would take approximately twelve seconds to pass the lady's apartment, which meant it took ten seconds for the body to drop. This cause another juror to fought evidence, and wanted to hear more. Also he gave examples of how the old man was handicap and that in fifteen seconds he couldn't have reached the door. It would have taken him a minimum of forty one seconds to get from his bedroom, down the hall and to the door with the chains. He gave this boy second chance at life due to the fact that he gave it a extra thought, and was a critical thinker.

The person I disliked throughout the entire more happens to be the worst critical thinker out of them all. He was the third juror. He was solely basing his reasoning on the prosecutions so call facts. The fact which was said to be a woman saw the boy stab his father and a old man claiming he heard the fight and saw the boy running. This juror did not care to put any thought into his verdict of guilty. He didn't want to hear anything anyone had to say about the case if it was in the boy's defense. He was mainly doing personal attacks when the argument was clearly about the case. Also he used the example about the way the knife was used and how he would personally have done it. Although with the history the boy had with knives would prove that it was not the same way. And one that was familiar with a switch blade knew to stab upwards that was the purpose of a switch blade. Even with facts that other jurors were bringing up he still was going with the point that it wasn't in the evidence.

The three jurors that were prevented from thinking critically were four, seven and ten. Juror number four voted Guilty until the second to last round of voting. His reason was saying he alibi was bad. That because the boy couldn't remember the name of the movie. He also said that since the boy was raised in the slumps he was going to be a criminal anyway. Therefore critical thinking was not in play due to the fact that he didn't put his self in the boy's shoes. Which another juror pointed out, how the father was lying dead in the room and the police were questioning the boy on scene.

Juror seven stayed stubborn the entire time. He was never concerned with the case. He was more concerned about the baseball game that started at eight. His reasoning was that the motive was decent enough to convict the boy. He claims that the boy and dad got in a fight the boy got mad and stabbed his dad and ran. This juror claimed it was a good enough motive until juror eight and nine brought up valid points to make him reconsider. Juror ten was close to being the