Is that he killed the men after they had been arrested, were in custody, and were being prepared to stand trial.
If the police had refused to arrest them, or if they had been acquitted by an obviously crooked jury, that would be one thing, but the system was working and yet he still went vigilante - that's what bothers me, and what makes it hard to justify his actions morally.
[deleted]
This story isn’t about the daughter however; this story is about the purported murder committed by a black man against two good ol’ boys, against the back drop of being found innocent by a jury of one’s peers. I think this film highlights the fact that Justice is not one size fits all, and that the jury is significantly empowered to vote one way or the other. We may think Carl Lee Halley is guilty, but his jury found him innocent. End of Story.
shareThey raped his daughter..how are they good ole boys? I hope you're being sarcastic
shareYou obviously don't know the definition of a 'good ole boy'............
shareMy mistake. Just looked it up. Never heard that phrase before.
share[deleted]
I came here to start my own thread for this but I will instead respond to this one.
I hate to seem unsympathetic but as a society we CANNOT allow vigilante justice to occur INSIDE courtrooms against people who are in custody and on trial. To condone that is to completely undermine our court system and set the stage for anarchy. I do NOT agree with him getting off scott free,they needed to convict him of something and had I been on his jury I would have gone for manslaughter or something. Oh I would not want him in prison for life for murder I agree morally his victims deserved to die its just I am not comfortable with him getting off scott free.
Same goes for the early 1990s case where a mother named Ellie Nestler shot and killed the man who molested her children in the courtroom and got several years for it. Many yelled that she was a hero and should be set free and given an award for what she did. As much as I hate people who rape children as a society we cannot allow angry people to undermine our court system (yes I admit its flawed).
Had this movie been real life I would not have approved on legal grounds of this guy getting off scott free.
Oh and do not get me wrong if he had gone after and killed those 2 BEFORE they had been apprehended I might have been ok with him getting off, my problem is not that he killed them in and of itself its that he did it inside a court room during a trial while the 2 men were in custody and handcuffed THAT is what I cannot condone.
I hate how Liberals are always so self-righteous.
You want to play the game, you'd better know the rules, love.
-Harry Callahan
I think that he needed to get justice for his daughter. He was calculated about it but that just proves he was certain of what he should do. He had no confidence in the legal system and, as a father, wanted to ensure that those guys paid the ultimate price for that they did.
As for Carl Lee's 'victims', well...if they don't want to get killed on the courthouse steps by an angry vigilante, then maybe they shouldn't have raped, abused and almost killed (twice) an innocent little girl.
Those boys would have been found innocent. The town was racist and it was disgusting that they had to picture the girl white. Good point of the movie but sad.
Waiting to kill the boys may have gotten him in a worse situation. Taking action sooner helped him. I think we should be more disgusted with the families and people in support of the two men. They sat up there and acted like the guys were innocent.
You're right, killing them so soon after what happened helps the case because they can easily fall back on the concept that he was emotionally distraught over what happened and therefore wasn't thinking straight. If he waited until after the trial was over, it would have been harder to use that as a reason.
share[deleted]