He Was Guilty! - A Time to Kill (1996) Discussion

[–] Dismenot 11 years ago

The only thing he was guilty of was not shoving the barrel up their arse's before he pulled the trigger.

http://www.missingkids.com
http://www.amberalert.gov

reply

[–] jackdaly1996 11 years ago

You obviously have no conception whatsoever that no matter how heinous someone's crime they deserve to be punished lawfully and not by vigilante's. I would apply this rule to anyone from child rapists, serial killers and genocidal dictators.

reply

[–] Dejay 11 years ago

Your moral argument obviously depends on the law of the country and the justice system. If the justice system is not able to dispense fair justice (e.g. corrupt like in the movie), IMHO vigilantism is morally acceptable.

BTW that he didn't wait for the trial is actually an argument that he was temporarily insane. He could have let them go to jail for a few years and kill them when they get out.

And also you seem to be in the minority. Currently the US is killing people solely because of suspicious behavior without trial or jury. Simply going to an alquaeda recruitment meeting to hear what the crazies have to say can get you and your whole family bombed. Or carrying a gun for protection against the crazies. So laws are not always "right".

reply

[–] CinnamonApplePie 9 years ago

I like the way you think.

reply

[–] baran_erik 9 years ago

Sorry, but this case is why we have the judicial system we have. And anyone who would call to circumvent it doesn't deserve to be called an American.

Regardless how heinous the crime, the accused deserves a fair trial before an impartial jury.

Since you don't believe that, you don't get to call yourself an American.

reply

[–] mikeyg24 11 years ago

That's how the law works, he was charged with murder but if the jury felt it wasn't murder they have to declare a not guilty verdict. They can't come in and say 'well not murder but let's go for manslaughter'. The error was in the prosecution pushing for murder and the death penalty.

Your's sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] manofsteel4455 11 years ago

And so were the rapists. Now the odds are even lol.

You want to play the game, you'd better know the rules, love.
-Harry Callahan

reply

[–] mikeyg24 11 years ago

Again that's how the law works. I remember the case of a young English girl called Louise Woodward. She was a nanny in the US and was charged with killing the baby she was payed to watch. The prosecution contended that she couldn't handle the baby crying, shook it and dropped it on the floor. The baby died six days later from a subdural hematoma. Long story short a grand jury brought back a first degree murder charge, the trial jury brought back a guilty verdict but the judge reduced it to manslaughter and sentenced her to time already served. Such things happen, he felt it wasn't murder.

There's a very good comment in the movie 'The Reader'. A law professor says 'Societies think they operate by something called morality, but they don't. They operate by something called law.' In other words, in reality, morality and the law rarely go hand in hand.

Legally Carl Lee was innocent because a jury of his peers said he was and that's a fact. Morally or spiritually speaking that's for each person to decide. Personally it didn't bother me to see him get off the hook, but that's just me

Yours sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mikeyg24 11 years ago

I think the crux of your point is that they rendered a verdict of not guilty out of emotion and not law? I don't think that's the case. Bear in mind throughout the movie we see the jurors going from unanimous guilty (that n*****'s gonna fry) to members changing their mind long before Jake's speech as they heard evidence and testimony.

I think in this case the jury felt he didn't commit first degree murder, and I agree with them from a legal perspective. That's their right, that's why they're there. They're told to weigh the evidence relative to the charge and they figured that his actions were not in concordance with their interpretation of what constitutes first degree murder. If I was on the jury I would have considered him legally insane despite the fact that the Doctor for the defense had a shady past. What Jake did wasn't reaching out to their emotion as such, he was trying to remove their prejudice. If Carl Lee's daughter was white they probably would have considered insanity right off the bat. That's what I think anyway.

Yours sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] johnr_10 11 years ago

We saw Carl Lee kill the brothers, but we did not see him murder them, and this is because the jury said so. There is a very real difference between killing and murdering

reply

[–] mikeyg24 11 years ago

Exactly^^^. That's what I'm trying to say to the other poster but I can't think of any other way I can put it. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. And I'm not quite sure he gets the concept of legally insane either.

Yours sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

reply

[–] Herreken 11 years ago

mikeyg24

I think the crux of your point is that they rendered a verdict of not guilty out of emotion and not law? I don't think that's the case. Bear in mind throughout the movie we see the jurors going from unanimous guilty (that n*****'s gonna fry) to members changing their mind long before Jake's speech as they heard evidence and testimony.

Actually it was the other way around. There were only two scenes that showed how the jurors were going to vote. In the first scene there were 7 who thought Lee was guilty with 4 undecided & 1 who thought Lee wasn't guilty. Then the next time we see the jurors having dinner together, the head juror says "Guilty" & they all raise their hands.

I think it was pretty obvious that the jury voted not guilty in the end due to Brigance's emotional closing statements which didn't include any law-based arguments as to why Lee should be freed.

DISPLAY thy breasts, my Julia!

reply

[–] Doc80 10 years ago

Yeah, I always saw it as a crime of passion. Those two men raped and nearly killed his daughter. That what was so interesting about Jake's summation. He put the jurors in Carl Lee's place and basically asked "what would you do?" without actually asking that question. If a person is so distraught over what happened, it can't possibly be first degree murder.

reply

[–] ralph_2ndedition 10 years ago

The jury certainly couldn't just declare him 'innocent', as it is clear he did shoot both the redneck rapists aswell as poor Looney.
But they CAN declare him 'not guilty of murder by reason of temporary insanity' (which is what the defense is pleading).
Obviously they never expected to get that, especially after the disastrous questioning of their own psychiatrist, but their plea still stand and is open for the jury to rule on.
The movie strangely enough decide to not let us see the verdict, and we're instead shown a spectator run out and yell to the crowd that Carl is "NOT GUILTY! NOT GUILTY!", which makes it easy to believe that that short statement is the only verdict uttered by the jury, while it most likely is not.

reply

[–] the_la_baker 9 years ago

The jury certainly couldn't just declare him 'innocent', as it is clear he did shoot both the redneck rapists aswell as poor Looney.
But they CAN declare him 'not guilty of murder by reason of temporary insanity' (which is what the defense is pleading).
Obviously they never expected to get that, especially after the disastrous questioning of their own psychiatrist, but their plea still stand and is open for the jury to rule on.
The movie strangely enough decide to not let us see the verdict, and we're instead shown a spectator run out and yell to the crowd that Carl is "NOT GUILTY! NOT GUILTY!", which makes it easy to believe that that short statement is the only verdict uttered by the jury, while it most likely is not.

The jury can absolutely declare him not-guilty and there is nothing anyone can do about it. If they were to declare him guilty in spite of overwhelming evidence that he was innocent, the judge could overrule the guilty verdict. Not-guilty is forever. The defendant cannot be tried again for the same crime(double jeopardy) and a jury cannot be punished for a wrong decision(and the judge cannot overrule it). The consequence of those two laws create something called "jury nullification":
When the jury decides that even though they are guilty they don't think they deserve to be punished so they say "not-guilty".
It is extremely controversial in law.

During civil war era northern juries would refuse to convict escaped slaves, setting them free, and southern juries would refuse to convict lynch mobs.

reply

[–] ralph_2ndedition 9 years ago

So you quoted me to show me that I was wrong, and then contradicted what I had written...

I wrote, quite clearly, that the jury CAN declare him "not guilty (by reasons of temporary insanity)". They cannot however declare him INNOCENT, as he was by any and all accounts guilty of murder.

reply

[–] the_la_baker 9 years ago

So you quoted me to show me that I was wrong, and then contradicted what I had written...

I wrote, quite clearly, that the jury CAN declare him "not guilty (by reasons of temporary insanity)". They cannot however declare him INNOCENT, as he was by any and all accounts guilty of murder.

Defensive much? I was expanding on what you said and clarifying some points...

If I were trying to show you why you were wrong, I'm pretty sure contradicting you would be an integral part of that.

Chill out.

reply

[–] ralph_2ndedition 9 years ago

Whatever, man.
If you don't read through what you write before you post it I can't help you.

reply

[–] the_la_baker 9 years ago

Whatever, man.
If you don't read through what you write before you post it I can't help you.

What? Are you okay? I think you might need a hug. You seem... sensitive.

reply

[–] mikeyg24 11 years ago

I never said there was an excuse. I'm just explaining how the law works. If you think it's a crappy movie then don't watch it!

reply

[–] Nanosecond 11 years ago

I can't believe the jury found him not guilty at the end but then again everything the judge was allowing to be said in that courtroom had me suspending my disbelief to the max. This was a cartoonish depiction of America's legal system to appeal to our heartstrings and hammer down the message of positive race relations. The funny thing is the "not guilty" verdict would set a precedent that future trials could draw from causing a surge in vigilante justice.

But whatever. The whole movie was ridiculous:
1) throwing a ticking time bomb which must have had one of the slowest delays man ever created.
2) having multiple death threats and attempts made at your life and the life of your family but not acting vigilant enough to protect yourself throughout parts of the movie.
3) a dumb wife who doesn't understand why her husband took the case until the very end even though he's been telling her over and over again that he felt guilty for not reporting Carl Lee to the police before he killed the two men.
4) a black sheriff in a racist white town??? isn't that an elected position??? So racist white people voted a black sheriff into office???
5) the judge allowing irrelevant facts and/or opinions about character witnesses and expert witnesses to be entered into testimony, not to mention the shouting from both lawyers in the courtroom and citizens in the gallery.

"Nobody can hear you. Nobody cares about you. Nothing will come of this."

reply

[–] amkus 11 years ago

All great points.

And yes, Sheriff is an elected position.

reply

[–] katiefanatic-791-306918 9 years ago

the point wasn't so much that he was guilty, it was that had a white man done what he did, he would have gotten off cause he was white. there was a double standard cause of the racism.

reply

[–] CCRider01 9 years ago

Actually he was found not guilty by a "jury of peers", so he was in fact not guilty according to the law. Oh what's that you say, it was just a silly unrealistic movie and in real life he would have served prison time. Well not so fast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PUE8fYxjq8

The father who shot his sons kidnapper and accused rapist was initially charged with 2nd degree murder, before pleading guilty to manslaughter. He did not serve any time in prison, instead received 5 years probation and some community service.

reply

[–] gribfritz2 9 years ago

The man in the video accepted a plea bargain and was, obviously, found guilty. Lucky for him he served no time, but he did not enter a plea of "not guilty (insane or otherwise)" and he was not found "not guilty" either.

reply

[–] CCRider01 9 years ago

I already stated in my comments, that the man in the video link pled guilty. The fact remains, that this man spent no time in jail for committing what in actuality was first degree murder.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (6571724) 9 years ago

Boy, sure glad I'm not YOUR daughter. Some thugs rape and murder me and you shrug it off and maybe just whine a little bit. What a passionate person you are lol what a wimpy little reject.

reply

[–] the_la_baker 9 years ago

Boy, sure glad I'm not YOUR daughter. Some thugs rape and murder me and you shrug it off and maybe just whine a little bit. What a passionate person you are lol what a wimpy little reject.

That was uncalled for. I know I'm glad you aren't my daughter.

reply

[–] The_Ultimate_Hippo 9 years ago

Have you ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"??? Apparently Carl Lee hadn't because he somehow felt he had the right to be the judge, jury and executioner and the movie basically stated that it's OK to murder someone in cold blood if they piss you off enough.

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

reply

[–] redrum760 9 years ago

it wasnt cold blooded, he was heated up

I DO CROSSWORD PUZZLES IN PEN CUZ IM JUST THAT CONFIDENT

reply

[–] connypricilya 8 years ago

please, they not just 'pissed him off'.. they raped and tortured his little baby, that horrible thing's they've done will haunt her for the rest of her life, she could be mentally ill (she's already physically damaged obviously). You'll understand if you're a parent. If that was my baby, I wouldn't shot them, i will skinned those pigs alive

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]