First of i want to say A time To Kill was my favourite novel in high school and has become one of my favourite movies. I have always stated that i am on the side of Carl Lee and see myself taking the same measures if my daughter or any family member was raped or murdered.
I just thought id let everyone know that this movies ending is not as far fetched as some may think. Joe Horn is an elderly Texan who killed, via shotgun, two robbers who were going to successfully rob his neighbours home. Joe horn was aquitted in the murders.
This man protecting his old neighbours home from being robbed of records, crystal stemware and knickknacks isnt even in the same universe as the rape/attempted murder of a young girl, and the man was aquitted.
I think Carl Lee Hailey was justified and was rightly aquitted of the murders.
A question to all of you who say justice should have been allowed to run its course: If the boys were aquitted of the crimes they were clearly guilty of, would Carl Lee then be justified in seeking his own justice and retribution?
How do you figure there was nothing to suggest guilt? You see the boys kidnap, rape, hang the girl and the one guy confesses on tape. Have you seen the movie?
Look out, Menace. This guy is on the side of child rapists, and may actually be one. Keep the kids away.
Also, there was a lot that indicated those two as the rapists. There was the confession and the bloody shoe belonging to the little girl found in the back of the truck. They were GUILTY.
Knowing they were guilty from all this is enough. The law doesn't need to confirm it. Carl Lee did the right thing.
No, Mr. Islam, he is on the side of America and the American way of life. The way you talk and the causes you champion are reasons why we should look at the 2nd Amendment and the damage it does in the US. I figure, if we can do away with one of the bedrock ideals this country was founded upon, we can do away with the compensators that take 30,000 lives a year.
Carl Lee was guilty of two counts of 1st degree murder and one count of 1st degree assault on a police officer and reckless endangerment, in the least.
So your take is that a gun that Carl Lee got illegally should show that legal guns need to be banned? LOL
And as far as him being guilty of 2 counts of 1st degree murder. Obviously you don't have children. Were your child brutally raped by 2 grown men at 10 years old....and then hung from a tree, you telling me you wouldn't react the exact same way? You might vote to convict him if on a jury, but there's not a parent I've met that would.
He's right! Down with Freedom Of Speech! Down with the First Amendment! Let's burn the books too... lord knows we wouldn't want people actually deciding for themselves what was right... oh no...
Since you obviously aren't an American, let me clue you in on something. In America, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Plus, unlike the Islamic country you live in, here in America vigilantism is illegal.
I think you're comparing apples to oranges in the Joe Horn case. Horn shot two men in the commission of a crime and in his front yard where Carl Lee shot two unarmed men in police custody and in a police station. Carl Lee shot those men in cold blood after having borrowed an autmatic weapon and staked out the police station. He wasn't insane and he knew what he was doing. He just lacked a more thought out plan snd he definitely should have waited for the outcome of the trial. Everyone assumes those biys would have gotten off and I think that's a bad assumption. There was a lot of physical and eye-witness evidence.
To answer your question: If the boys were aquitted of the crimes they were clearly guilty of, would Carl Lee then be justified in seeking his own justice and retribution? He would not be justified in killing two men who were cleared of their crimes in a court of law. It would be the same situation except they wouldn't be in police custody anymore.
Now, would I do what Carl Lee did if the rapist of my daughter were acquitted? Yes I would, but certainly not in a police station and not from long range. They would each know it was me before I killed them. I would definitely bide my time and plan it well. And if I were caught, I would fully expect to be tried for murder.
Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a f### how crazy they are!
Good points dukemd. Just one thing. There was no eye witnesses to the rape, although there was a confession, and the shoe, so youre probably right that the boys would not get off. They may have though, and i think thats what makes the story and situation complicated.
I also would avenge my daughters rape. I dont think any man would not want to or act on it. As you said; i too, would expect to be charged with murder. I would not be surprised if i was acquitted by a sympathetic jury.
juany -- if someone else had said the stuff you've been posting about the character of Carl Lee, you would be accusing them of being ... (get ready for it) ... a RACIST.
Innocent?! WTF! Are we just abandoning all logic now? They did it. Evidence was everywhere. Confession. Bloody shoe. One bragging, the other scared. Juan "Perv Boy" MacReady, where do you get 'innocent' from all that?
Maybe you should take your child-rapist-loving ways and leave the forum. You're not making any friends here, and your thinking is completely devoid of common sense. So what have you got? The wrong point of view, and nobody liking you. What's the point of going on?
FACT: In many countries (including the UK, last time I checked), everybody is presumed guilty until proven innocent. And in the UK, acquittal is based on their policy of "preponderance of evidence" as opposed to nations, such as the US, who adopt the "innocent until proven guilty" prospectus. If I am wrong here, Juan, I'll duly accept any convincing rebuttal to the contrary on my (admittedly) limited knowledge of British criminal law and court procedure.
Where, Juan? Just WHERE is your righteous indignation regarding the crimes the two red-necks commited ON SCREEN??? Strikes me it's noticibly absent! Here's a little hint for you: When any malefactor character, on screen, is SHOWN commiting heinous crimes, the VIEWER is presumed to understand that said malefactor FRICKIN' DID IT!!! So where do you come off condemning the raped/mutilated girl's father as even worse than the lowlifes who perpetrated the crimes which Carl felt needing avenging?
If you are only 15 years old, then forget the whole thing. You have uncanny intelligence (I don't care what your non-fans at IMDb or YouTube say, they'd definitely be wrong to deny you're a very smart young man), but that doesn't necessarily mean you are *wise* or have *qualifying life experience* (such as having kids of your own, especially daughters) or *know what it means to be in someone else's shoes*, i.e., *have any capacity for human empathy*. Forgive me, Juan, but you're not judge or jury material. If you are ever called for jury duty someday, I hope (if you haven't matured by then) you'll be honest enough to recuse yourself for your inability to fairly judge other human beings.
Nevertheless, I agree that Carl's actions, though I sympathize with his outrage, are serious and he should have been punished; however, given the fact that the two perps WERE, indeed GUILTY (though denied their day in court, thanks to Carl), Carl should have gotten a token sentence for the homicides but several years hard time for shooting the leg off the deputy. Just my opinion, but also, Juan, to demonstrate that I'm not ENTIRELY disageeeing with you--mostly, I just find your unsympathetic attitude toward the father of a raped and nearly murdered little girl a disturbing thing.
Secret Message, HERE!-->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!
This is a stupid, dangerous movie. They shouldn't have shown the rape being committed because Carl, like everybody else, had NO way of knowing if the two boys were guilty or innocent.
I just hope and pray that what happened to Carl never happens, someday, to you OR me. We can pontificate all we want from the seated comfort of our armchairs about OTHER people's crimes and misdemeanors; but, when push comes to shove, who's to say that you or I would act any better than Carl did if YOUR little girl or MINE had been raped/mutilated/left for dead and two apprehended suspects in the crime were within our reach upon whom to exercise our wrath?
Secret Message, HERE!-->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!
Juan, you racial lowlife! I've lived for many years in the South, especially during the Jim Crow era. We had a lot of folks just like you down there, back then. They were called members of the Ku Klux Klan. If the races had been reversed in the film we're talking about, they would have taken both of those boys out, and hung them up from the nearest tree limb or telephone pole!
Forensic/genetic tests of the more primitive technology of even 40 years ago or longer would have concluded that the girl's dad could not possibly be a suspect.
"Lied?" "Invented the whole thing???" You mean like she "lied" and "invented" the semen deposit and her mutilated female organs?
Secret Message, HERE!-->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!
I don't think he "loves" child rapists, mradam; but it IS curious, to say the least, that he'd acquit those abominations of humanity (the evil rednecks in ATTK) in the face of all the evidence against them--yet, his number one hobby here at IMDb seems to be tarnishing the name of the late, great James Stewart over much, MUCH flimsier "evidence" (if you can call it that) than the bloodied little girl's shoe in the back of the rednecks' pickup.
Secret Message, HERE!-->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!
Ok, you're right. He's very fond of child rapists; "love" might be too strong a word. He's always getting their back and taking their side on these boards. He never has one negative word to say about these monsters. He only talks about how cruel and barbaric WE are for wanting them dead or worse. It's pretty easy to see the fondness.
You know, mradam3, not to defend Juan for any verbal wrong-doing on his part, but if you go over his posts, you'll find he seems to operate on a "say anything to piss other people off" motif. He's a kid who gets off on that sort of thing; but I really don't think he believes, himself, a great deal of the stuff he posts in his obvious craving to raise the dander of other posters. I *kinda half-way* know how to deal with him and there's a *mutual grudging respect* between me and Juan that we didn't used to have because I'm beginning to understand him better.
Nevertheless, no one in his right mind would agree it's in good taste to defend and coddle sex offenders who have guilt written all over them--and wherever Juan appears to downplay THEIR grave offense in deference to condemning those who defend themselves or visit retribution on those offenders (the way Carl did, who knew damned well--as well as everyone else--that those two redneck specimens of pond life were the ones responsible for the violation and attempted murder of his daughter)--well, just let me say Juan's on his own and you can continue, as you wish, firing away against any verbal missteps of his that rub you the wrong way, mradam3.
Secret Message, HERE!-->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!
Yes, I know all this. Thank you. There's nothing to fire away at, though. This guy's been busted as a friend of child molesters and rapists. It's already too late for him. So, does he rub me the wrong way? No.
I was watching a documentary about vigilantes and they showed the true story of this guy (who's name I cannot for the life of me remember) who killed the man accused of kidnapping and molesting his son. He wasn't acquitted, but he was convicted of a much, much less serious crime like involuntary manslaughter or something (despite committing first degree murder).
I'm just trying to think of this from the child's point of view. She just went through the most traumatic event in her life, and now her daddy just committed a horrible crime which could result in him being taken away from her forever. Yes, she doesn't have to face the evil men who did this to her, but if her dad was convicted, he wouldn't get to be w/ her anymore. The best revenge is living well, and I think a father being there for his daughter while she recovers from an attack like that is more important than anything.
~::~::~ The midget I'm dating could be my daughter! ~Denny Crane
Sure, we do! But he's not without a certain amount of intelligence, nor is he always wrong--kinda like the proverbial "broken clock" that's right twice a day LOL!
On another note, check the guy's posting history. It seems likely the admins have frozen his account, as he hasn't made any new posts in over a month. His future comments here will, doubtless, be under yet a new user name in his IMDb history of screen incarnations, of which, he apparently has an unlimited supply.
Secret Message, HERE!-->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!
& they did a rape kit at the hospital. so i'm quite sure they found the rapists ahem--bodily fluids in her. all they had to do was run a dna test & voila...let's hang the hyenas by their *beep*
JuanMacready, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I agree that in reality there is a very slim chance that he would get off because there was both mens rea and actus reus. He hid out in a closet and waited for the evil men to enter the building. But, it isn't impossible that a jury could let him off because they believe it to be an act of passion.
two things....1) nice Billy Madison reference hockyebabe 2) JuanMacready,you're a *beep* idiot. The two rednecks were shown raping her and had her shoe was in their truck.
his daughter was still alive so she could have just told him and everyone else who the rapists were so there was plenty of evidence to show that the two guys rapists
In the UK, the principle is ""Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. – The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof."
In other words: innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies with the prosecutor.
I agree with you. He/She is being an ass. No witnesses? How many people do you know that witness two men kidnap a child and rape them in the wood? Suppose to be not witnesses. Go watch the movie you troll.
There was already real life presedent in place that is directly contrasting the one in the film. Friday, March 16, 1984, Doucet was flown back from California to Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, also known as Ryan Field, to face trial. Doucet arrived and was led in handcuffs by police officers through the airport at around 9:30 p.m. Unbeknownst to everyone else, Gary Plauche was waiting for Doucet with a gun.
Plauche was friends with several high-ranking police officers in the Baton Rouge Police Department; while many people believed that these contacts told Plauche where and when Doucet would be arriving, it was actually an employee of the TV news station WBRZ who gave Plauche the information. A news television crew was also waiting for Doucet and had set up their cameras to record his arrival. Opposite the news crew was a bank of pay telephones, where Plauche waited while talking to his best friend on a telephone. He wore a baseball cap and sunglasses, so no one recognized him.
As Doucet was escorted through the airport, he passed the television crew who were taping the scene. He then walked past Plauche, who took out his gun and fired a single shot, directly at the right side of Doucet's head, at point-blank range. Doucet immediately fell to the floor, and Plauche placed the gun down before officers restrained him.
Plauche was initially charged with second-degree murder but agreed to a plea bargain in which he pleaded no contest to manslaughter. He was sentenced to five years probation and 300 hours of community service, which he completed in 1989.Psychological reports helped Plauche's case after it was learned that Doucet had abused Jody Plauche months prior to the kidnapping. Dr. Edward P. Uzee examined Gary Plauche and determined that he could not tell the difference between right and wrong when he killed Doucet.
Joe Horn is an elderly Texan who killed, via shotgun, two robbers who were going to successfully rob his neighbours home. Joe horn was aquitted in the murders.
This man protecting his old neighbours home from being robbed of records, crystal stemware and knickknacks isnt even in the same universe as the rape/attempted murder of a young girl, and the man was aquitted.
He used deadly force to protect private property, which in some states is acceptable.
In 'A Time To Kill', the rape had already been committed and the perpetrators had been found and arrested and were going to trail. Shooting the men did not prevent the crime and was not in ANYONES defense. It was revenge. It was the worst kind of vigilantism. It's not the same thing at all as using force to defend yourself or your property or to stop a crime that is in progress.
There's no comparison to be made here. None at all. The fact that you think there is a comparison suggests that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and your rights. Not that I expect you to read this because this thread is three years old.
reply share
@Vordhosbn, are you taking that azzwhole Macready's side? Do you think Carl Lee was an evil murderer who should have been found guilty in this case? I believe that's the gist of the debate on this thread - not what the law books say or 'comparisons' with past legal precedences. Just The Law vs (actual) Justice. Since you appear to be quite knowledgable in legal matters, perhaps you are aware that there's often a big difference between those two concepts? So what's your take on this particular case - should he have been found guilty and duly punished, or not?? Simple as that.
I was responding directly to the original poster and the comparison he made between two fundamentally different crimes which shouldn't have been compared in the first place. Nothing that I've said here has anything to do with this Macready person that you've mentioned.
Do you think Carl Lee was an evil murderer who should have been found guilty in this case?
I do not think that he is "evil", as you put it, because I do not believe that evil can be personified, just as I do not believe that good can be personified. No one is absolutely good or evil - real people are more complex than that.
But yes, that aside, he was guilty of murder and should not have been acquitted.
Do you believe in civilization? Or do you prefer barbarism?
I think what happened in this movie was jury nullification. My understanding of nullification is that it occurs when the jury acquits someone even though they believe them guilty according to the letter of the law. The jury in this story didn't buy the "temporary" insanity defense which, of course, in real life, doesn't exist in the U.S. legal system today. However, they felt that sending Carl Lee to the gas chamber would be a bigger miscarriage of justice than finding him not guilty of a crime that everyone knew he committed.
Jury nullification is real, but it's constitutionality is in question. Judges can remove jurors they believe may attempt to nullify the law (example: An anti-death penalty advocate may be removed from a jury on a capital murder case because they might try and find the defendant not guilty for the sole purpose of sparing him from execution). Jake, in his final statement where he basically asked for nullification, could have been found in contempt, and Judge Noose could have declared a mistrial as the argument presented was not to argue reasonable doubt to Carl Lee's guilty, but actually asking the jury to overlook his guilt (of course, had Carl Lee been convicted, he could have appealed on the grounds that his attorney acted improperly). As it stands now, nullification is legal, but no officer of the court is permitted to persuade a jury to use it.
I agree. If they had gone with second degree murder they could have found him guilty. Because the prosecution went with first degree murder he got found innocent and because of double jeapardy he cant be retried. Basically, the case is a case where they went for too high a verdict.
completely agree, they probably would have gotten away with the crime against Karl's daughter or gotten a ridiculously small sentence with possibility of parole with good behavior. they deserve more than death in my opinion, its a pity there isnt a god to administer punishment to people that do crimes like this in reality, if there was they wouldnt see a trial. they would die instantly or something similar. still a good movie though. unfortunately Karl would not be acquitted in our reality, he would have gotten the death sentence or life in prison without possibility of parole.