MovieChat Forums > A Time to Kill (1996) Discussion > I'm sorry but this movie is so wrong

I'm sorry but this movie is so wrong

posted 9 years ago by The_Ultimate_Hippo
30 replies | jump to latest

First and foremost those two guys who raped Samuel L.'s daughter it would take me about 30 seconds to give them both the death penalty so don't try to make it sound like I am on there side.

My complaint is who is Samuel L. to complete go around the justice system and execute them without any kind of due process? He heard a rumor that they might get off with 10 years and that somehow gives him the right to blow them both away with an automatic weapon as they are being escorted into the courthouse to their trial in handcuffs? Sorry but I have a hard time buying this guy as the hero. And too bad for that innocent cop who did nothing to Samuel L. who just had to lose his leg.

Does anyone not understand what a bad precedent a case like this would set? If it's OK to murder two people in cold blood on their way to their trial because they rape your daughter is it also OK to do the same to two people who robbed your house? Made sexual comments towards your wife? Rear ended your bumper? Ran over your dog? Sold you some bad milk? Where exactly are we going to draw the line?

Oh and I don't buy the whole "not guilty due to insanity" thing at all, he knew exactly what he was doing and even planned the whole thing out. Even if that defense did work wouldn't they send him to a mental institution? Seems like a bad idea letting a man go who has a tendency to blow people away with an automatic weapon. If he could kill those two scumbags who knows who'll be next.

"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine

[–] TompaDompa 9 years ago

Copied from a previous post I made:

It's morally indefensible, and I believe that was the point – to instill cognitive dissonance in the viewer (who is clearly meant to root for him).

That is to say, your reaction – taking issue with the notion that what Carl Lee did was okay – is precisely the appropriate one. Even if that wasn't the filmmakers' intention, I'd still argue it's the reading that makes the most sense.

Don't listen to the negative ones; their arguments are irrational.

[–] The_Ultimate_Hippo 9 years ago

Yeah if I have to choose between siding with the rapists or Carl Lee I am siding with Carl Lee but that still doesn't make what he did OK, he still should have paid for his crime. And for all we know the jury could have given those two rapists death or life in prison. But of course we'll never know because he killed them.

"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine

[–] SoAudreyHepburn 9 years ago

The jury couldn't give those two dispicable child rapist pigs the death penalty because Tanya didn't die. While Carl Lee could have because the two rapists did die.

I don't condone what Carl Lee did it is understandable his young child was viciously raped and hanged being lleft for dead. I think ANY parent in his situation would have done the same thing, I certainly know I would have if I had a child.
While I think Carl Lee should have served some time in jail I think he and his family suffered more than enough and he didn't need a death sentence added on so I was rooting for him.

[–] boxerrebellion 9 years ago

The OP states,

Does anyone not understand what a bad precedent a case like this would set?

, conveniently ignoring the previous two to three centuries of 'precedent' set by a society that CONDONED the raping/beating/killing of African Americans in that locale and the States surrounding it. Put yourself in a situation where generations of your family were not considered human, where justice did not exist due to the colour of your skin and weigh that against the precedent of ONE case of vigilante justice.

[–] travischar 9 years ago

Nobody in modern Western society CONDONES the raping/beating/killing of anyone. Well, actually you apparently do condone the killing of people. But that's not my point.

People shouldn't condone vigilante justice, either. You don't want the rule of law, you want revenge.

Google "Justice is blind". It might give you different results than what your vigilante-approving self might expect.

[–] dgurpegui 9 years ago

It's like Donald Sutherland's character said- you could win this case. You could win this case and justice will prevail. You could lose this case and justice will prevail.

[–] Doc80 9 years ago

Exactly. Here's the thing though. Obviously Carl Lee shouldn't have taken justice in his own hands, no one should, but there was a very real possibility that the two rapists would have got away with it, especially in that state with an all white jury/ He could have very well let the justice system do its thing but as others have said, any parent who has a child that is raped knows what Carl Lee was going through, and therefore can at least understand why he did what he did.

I would also point out that the reason he gets off isn't entirely because of what happened to his daughter. The DA went for Murder One and nothing else. Therefore the jury could only decide his innocence or guilt when it comes to that charge. If he would have accepted a charge of Manslaughter they would have at least had to charge him for that.

[–] jellyree 9 years ago

Why are you sorry? Have a bit of courage.

Perhaps the OP just wants to reach out for some sense of community.

[–] starseed062 9 years ago

That innocent cop got right up on the stand and said 'good for you'. At least, in the book he did. I forget if he did in the movie. But he forgave Carl Lee and didn't blame him at all.

[–] bobbiekaye69 8 years ago

The innocent cop, Deputy Looney, looked at the jury and told them "You let him go!" Looney lost his leg, but he completely understood why Carl Lee did what he did.

I intend to live forever.
So far, so good.

[–] ridge-m-1 9 years ago

When it comes to the South, and the remnants of the institution of slavery, it would be very naive and nonsensical for Samuel L. to believe that he could expect justice to prevail in the case of the white trash that raped, almost killed, and deprived his daughter the ability to have a family of her own. It would follow that any father subjected to that vicious molestation of his 10 year old daughter would at least be tempted kill the guilty parties.

In this case, and acting as his counsel, this viewer would have used "a crime of passion" defense and then used the actual summation given by McConaughey. In the American justice system exists the constitutional doctrine of "Jury Nullification". It is a principle that allows a jury to acquit a defendant that is technically guilty but in the eyes of the jury does not deserve punishment.

Whether an all white jury from the South would actually invoke that power is questionable in Samuel L's case but it would be perfectly permissible for them to do so.

[–] Chaseterrier 9 years ago

In Louisiana, Gary Plauche killed Jeff Doucet who had kidnapped and sexually assaulted his son, Jody Plauche. Gary Plauche only got five years probation and 300 hours of community service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Plauche

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi3Hyxuf5AE

http://theadvocate.com/news/10588135-123/gary-plauche-man-who-killed

So in the real world, there has been at least one case where a father killed the person that hurt their child and got away with it.

[–] manofsteel4455 9 years ago

So if the judicial system itself is corrupted. Then what other alternative is there, besides taking the law into your own hands?

[–] Lord_Gyaldhart 9 years ago

He heard a rumor that they might get off with 10 years and that somehow gives him the right to blow them both away with an automatic weapon as they are being escorted into the courthouse to their trial in handcuffs?

Living in Mississipi, one of the most racist states in one of the most racist countries on Earth, I imagine it was more than a rumor.

I would be willing to bet that if we are to research historical facts on that state, we would find a considerable number of instances in which justice was deficient, unfair, corrupted, etc. Especially towards non whites.

So, I suppose it is easy to sit behind a computer, living on a place in which justice is relatively functional and judge the actions of this person, but perceptions change entirely when you are the subject or target of a long history of unfair dealings at the time in which "justice" is being administered.

Seems like a bad idea letting a man go who has a tendency to blow people away with an automatic weapon. If he could kill those two scumbags who knows who'll be next.

Just make sure you don't rape any of his daughters, and I imagine you should be fine.

The GREATEST ally and BEST friend of christianity throughout history is Satan

[–] iroquois_pliskin00 9 years ago

Amen. I couldn't have put it any better.

[–] creatorof2002 8 years ago

I said on a different thread that when a fictional hero is exacting revenge the moral burden of responsibility is entirely on them NOT to harm innocent people in the process of getting their revenge.

For example THE PUNISHER would not fire through a hostage to get to his enemy.

Harming innocents is never justified in the process of getting a revenge and he blew off a poor man's leg (strange that the one leg guy said he was a "hero"). He should at the very least have been prosecuted for THAT.

And I agree with the person who started this thread. We as a society cannot condone killing prisoners during a trial while they are handcuffed. As soon as we as a society condone that we are much closer to anarchy. He should NOT have gotten off scott free.

[–] kojak_savalas 8 years ago

You win the internet.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) a year ago

The thing is though you don't get to just assume that, you have to let the justice system play out. By that logic I can just connect the dots in whatever direction I need to to justify to myself murdering someone.

And why would the precedent this movie is so poorly trying to convey at us end at rape? Could someone murder someone else because they think they will not be punished by the court system for being a drug dealer? How about a murderer? Tax evader? Money Launderer? Embezzler? Trespasser? This movie is opening a very dangerous can of worms.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) a year ago

Also there you are making blind assumptions about the state of Mississippi. Very ignorant on your part. I didn't realize you get to label the entire state as racist and therefore a black person gets to just kill people because they think the system will not prosecute white people.

[–] Corky666 8 years ago

This was about the most preposterous combination of drivel I have ever read. Were you conceived from a crack whore???

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) a year ago

What was preposterous about it?