blog

ok so this play we are reading, Twelve Angry Men, got me all hyped up. how could people believe that this kid is not guilty. there were two witnesses and he had no alibi and they knife was the exact same as the one the kid bought earlier that day. i feel like the eighth juror wanted to be a good lawyer for the kid because the actual lawyer wasn't very good. he would distort facts so that it seemed like the kid was innocent. after a while they gave in and more people decided to change their minds. then everyone changed their minds. if i was the last juror that didn't change his mind i would have been stubborn and made it a hung jury because any other jury would have been more reasonable and made more facts would have come out. i think this would of been better than just saying the kid was innocent. i feel like people who thought the kid was innocent just wanted a good story. it was so obvious. i shouldnt get so worked up over this because its not a real story so i guess i wont worry about it. that is fifteen minutes and now i get to finish the rest of my homework.