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

[–] laiframor 8 years ago

You don't get sent to a mental institute for Temporary insanity

Sold you some bad milk?

If two *beep* rape, piss on, blind your young daughter leaving her unable to ever have kids, inc trying to hang her....then if you get away with killing them then...yeah everyone will start killing everyone fro no reason like bad milk, makes perfect sense.

For people that don't think this result is possible need to understand that they only went for murder 1, if they went for manslaughter he would have been convicted but not necessarily served time

Gary Plauche
It is mentioned in another post, In Louisiana in 1984 Gary Plauche shot and killed the man who had kidnapped and sexually assaulted his son. The shooting happened while the rapist pig had been in police custody for about 10 days.

He only got sentenced to Probation, no prison time

[–] connypricilya 8 years ago

i'm sorry but you are wrong too, do you actually compared killing the rapist of a 10 years old with killing someone that sold some bad milk? I'm a mother and if I was in Sam. L Jackson character position, I wouldn't blow them with automatic weapon, I would torture them first then they will die a very very miserable death, not a quick death like that. If someone like the 2 rapist monsters went free (even if they do time, they will be free in few years, it happened almost everywhere, rapist never get the punishment they deserve, many even didn't get any punishment at all), and once they free, they will almost 100% rape another kid again. They rape, torture and tried to kill a little girl without any reason at all, while the poor father killed them with a very obvious reason.. The reason behind their action is the thing that differentiate them. One being a monster, one being a grieving parent.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) a year ago

Didn't say that rape and selling bad milk were on the same playing field. I said if you open the door to allow cold blooded murder for rapists then people will use that excuse to justify murdering people for lesser offenses.

[–] sofkat 8 years ago

"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?"

This is truly idiotic! Research the concept of 'Punishment fitting the Crime'.

"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. "

As another poster mentioned, the two scumbags raped and attempted to murder a 10 year old child. This guy is the grieving father. If you cant see the difference here, you must be insane.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) a year ago

It's not idiotic at all, "punishment fitting the crime" is not for a citizen to determine, that's for the legal system to determine (BTW there is a constitutional amendment protecting us from "cruel and unusual punishments" no matter how sick the defendant is), but of course we'll never know how the legal system would have handled those two rapists because SLJ just went ahead and shot them.

[–] Bullish_Captain 8 years ago

He served enough time in jail during the trial.

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 7 years ago

And what if law didn't exist, would vigilante justice of this sort be acceptable then from a moral point of view by civilized society, as long as it is targetted against guilty individuals who deserve it, or have done something so awfully terrible as to deserve it?

[–] Iconoclast321 (386) 3 years ago

Here's my comment on the topic:

https://moviechat.org/tt0117913/A-Time-to-Kill/6104837459e5cd52d81f0b32/In-my-eyes

And btw, I'm not saying he was right - not saying that at all - nor would someone getting off be legal - just talking about reality (esp for white person in the South in the '80s).

[–] Ranb (9607) 5 months ago

I take it that you did not read the book or the watch the film? Perhaps you only watched the trailer?

Everyone in the film (and the book) knew Hailey was guilty AF. Brigance only had to give them an excuse to find him not guilty. That was the reason for his insanity defense.