You have a poor understanding of the themes of 12 Angry Men and your father smelt of elderberries!
Look, if you’re not going to take this seriously I’m leaving. (Pulls up pants)
Dale’s understanding of racial dynamics in film is flawed and he dresses unfashionably!
It’s a fair cop.
And in the manner of a male prostitute!
Aw, now where am I going to put your mother?
Yes, I know it’s usually done with a gerbil. Shut up.
I have often pondered what the premise of 12 Happy Men might be like: 11 jurors on a capital case vote to acquit, but the lone holdout dispels their (reasonable and other) doubts, racial and personal biases, eventually getting them to vote guilty. I have always found the original play rather too facile - jurors seem to fold more for the drama’s sake than psychological verisimilitude - and wondered what impact that might have on the “feel good” aspects of sending someone to the chair. Quite likely, it would make the story considerably more distasteful, depending on how convincing the accused’s guilt could be made and possibly one’s attitude towards capital punishment. An interesting thought experiment, anyway…
Sure. You can pretend to be, or not be, whatever you want. You’re apparently a delusional racist moron, but we knew that since the OP. Just don’t expect anyone to believe you. See, it’s a common pathology to pretend to suffer from the bigotry we inflict on others: notice how white christians whine about how they’re persecuted, because they’re sometimes reminded of the rule of law.
But you have a bigger problem: you are, in your basic dorm-room bigotry, not impressing the grown-up racists for whom you’re trying to build your resume. You’re pulling your punches. You don’t know how to stay in the normal world and still get the attention of the grown-up fish-brained bigots who are busy on other forums. Go on over there; pants or not, with the straight dope as your resume, they’re not going to respect you either.
Eh, you want a Rad Lib interpretation of 12 Angry Men, OP, I’ll give you one.
(Original film only)
So, many think 12AM is about how a group of white guys came close to making a mistake because of their prejudices against the (presumed) ethnic identity of the Hispanic subject. And, sure, you can make that point if all you see is 12 white guys.
But in the 1950’s, these white guys weren’t equally white. Sure you had your Anglo representative in Henry Fonda, but you had your ethnic whites as well… and in the beginning, they were all (except Fonda) dismissive of the Anglo-Saxon normative beliefs of “liberty, truth, and justice for all”… you know, American beliefs. Until, that is, Henry Fonda pointed out that they weren’t living up to the Anglo-Saxon, ie, “white” ideal, that they were acting like their ethnic and class backgrounds would have them act, acting on their prejudices and short term thinking.
In short, 12AM makes the point that even though these jurors were white, they sure weren’t acting like a white man should.
At the end of the movie, the other jurors knew the truth: stop being so damned ethnic and deal with the world like a Real white man. With logic, fairness, and rationality. Like the British white guys who built this country, and not those others who came slinking in 30, 50, 100 years ago.
So, in essence, the original 12AM was a movie that showed that even among white people in America, there is an ethnic ideal you have to strive for. Just being white isn’t good enough, you have to be Anglo white. (And don’t even get me going on the Anglo dominance in 50s TV!)
How’s that? Rad Lib enough for ya, OP?
(The above was completely written tongue in cheek, btw, and I haven’t seen the movie in 10+ years, so don’t ask me to defend it! I think I first read this theory (or something like it) here, possibly also 10+ years ago, so credit where it may be due.)
Slow down Tex, I’m getting a two-fer with a little concentration.
I don’t share your opinion that the jurors folded for drama reasons - in my vague recollection each one seemed to either be convinced by some specific new detail, or just didn’t care much to begin with.
One difference that 12 Happy Men would have to make would be to cut out the shenanigans - we let Juror 8 get away with a lot (he brought in a knife!) because he’s on a heroic mission of mercy; we would give a Juror -8 on a mission of heartless pedantry considerably less slack.
On review, Juror 8 is kind of a sanctimonious prick, wot? I’d kinda like to see a version where Cobb and Fonda switch roles.
FWIW, AV Club has an article laying out why the kid was almost certainly guilty.
and here’s one with a crapload of math.
Read at your own pace, kid.
I’m not particularly impressed by the AV Club’s logic. The kid happens to have a bad memory about what he was doing the night his father was murdered. The killer used an apparently common knife in a way that somebody skilled with knives (as the kid was) wouldn’t have. It’s basically proven that neither witness could have seen the event (the man certainly not, the woman probably not).
I don’t really think that combining all that dubious and/or disproven evidence makes it any stronger collectively - even if you use the almightly force of math to do so. 
All that said, even if Juror 8 was wrong, he certainly had more than enough reason to have a reasonable doubt that the boy did it - which is all he needed, legally speaking. Of course in the proposed 12 Happy Men variant, he can’t just be instilling reasonable doubt - he must be eliminating reasonable doubt. That’s kind of a taller order, and it’s a bit less likely that the prosecution could have so badly delivered evidence that can be tweaked to prove certainty.
Here’s a Q: the math guy said the kid is 98% likely to be guilty and said it was a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Do you all consider 98% to be beyond a reasonable doubt?? Cause I don’t.
Previous thread here, minus the radical liberal overtones.
That perfectly illustrates the point of the story. You don’t know he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but you think he should be sentenced to death. Henry Fonda would like a word with you.
So justice is a liberal thing. That explains a lot…
Also, don’t wear ties with Polo shirts.