When they first took a vote if the boy was innocent or guilty 11 out the 12 men believed the boy was guilty. The 11 men truly believed he was guilty and thought juror #1 was crazy for thinking he was innocent. They voted 5 different times. The second time they voted it was 10 out of 12 men that still voted guilty the first one to change his vote was juror #9. The third vote after discussing and talking and reenacting the father walking down the hall and it taking long than the time mentioned jurors #2,5,6,11 changed their vote to guilty so that makes it 6 out the 6 men. On the forth vote jurors #7,1,and 12 changed their vote after that it was 4 men still thinking he was guilty and on the last vote after discussing the last with glasses situation
…show more content…
They were just assuming and without much evidence they were accusing the boy of being guilty. Good critical thinking means being open to other people’s opinions and listening to what they have say rather than just assuming they are wrong and not being open to what they have to say. All the evidence they had was questionable and not accurate. Therefore, juror #8 convinced by questioning every time the other jurors thought they had “evidence” because when the juror or jurors thought they were right there being still questions on how this or that was possible. Over the time some of the men would listen to juror number 8 because they didn’t have anything else to say when he would ask or suggest something else. They noticed and believed he had valid points that they couldn’t argue back …show more content…
Juror #8 mentions, but supposing he really *did* hear it. This phrase, how many times have all of us used it? Probably thousands. "I could kill you for that, darling." "Junior, you do that once more and I 'm going kill you." "Get in there, Rocky, and kill him!"... See, we say it every day.” Just because someone says it doesn’t mean they literally will the person. Later on in the movie it was proven because juror #3 shouts to juror #8 ‘I’ll kill him!” and right after he said that him and everyone else were in shocked because right then and there he proved a point and jurors #8 responds “You don’t really mean kill me… right?” Another unsound argument was juror #4 was arguing that the knife he was stabbed with was rare one in a million and it had to be the boy because they argued that does he really think that “The knife fell through the boy’s pocket and someone picked up from the street and stabbed the father” Juror #8 says “it’s possible. He lost it and someone stabbed it with a similar knife” all the other jurors agree with juror #4 that it is an unusual knife and isn’t possible. Later on juror #8 pulls out a similar knife to the one that was used for the crime. A sound argument juror
They were just assuming and without much evidence they were accusing the boy of being guilty. Good critical thinking means being open to other people’s opinions and listening to what they have say rather than just assuming they are wrong and not being open to what they have to say. All the evidence they had was questionable and not accurate. Therefore, juror #8 convinced by questioning every time the other jurors thought they had “evidence” because when the juror or jurors thought they were right there being still questions on how this or that was possible. Over the time some of the men would listen to juror number 8 because they didn’t have anything else to say when he would ask or suggest something else. They noticed and believed he had valid points that they couldn’t argue back …show more content…
Juror #8 mentions, but supposing he really *did* hear it. This phrase, how many times have all of us used it? Probably thousands. "I could kill you for that, darling." "Junior, you do that once more and I 'm going kill you." "Get in there, Rocky, and kill him!"... See, we say it every day.” Just because someone says it doesn’t mean they literally will the person. Later on in the movie it was proven because juror #3 shouts to juror #8 ‘I’ll kill him!” and right after he said that him and everyone else were in shocked because right then and there he proved a point and jurors #8 responds “You don’t really mean kill me… right?” Another unsound argument was juror #4 was arguing that the knife he was stabbed with was rare one in a million and it had to be the boy because they argued that does he really think that “The knife fell through the boy’s pocket and someone picked up from the street and stabbed the father” Juror #8 says “it’s possible. He lost it and someone stabbed it with a similar knife” all the other jurors agree with juror #4 that it is an unusual knife and isn’t possible. Later on juror #8 pulls out a similar knife to the one that was used for the crime. A sound argument juror