12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men
Sam
Block 7
Juror Eight An Argument where it is one versus eleven doesn’t seem to be fair does it. In Twelve Angry Men, a young boy from the slums is accused of stabbing his father. It is up to twelve men to decide his fate. Juror Eight was able to sway the vote because he connected with the other jurors on a personal level; he was very patient with everyone, listening to what they had to say, and used tangible evidence to recreate the crime scene itself in front of the twelve men. Because of Juror Eight’s denial of prejudiced beliefs and revolt against the status quo, he proves to be a hero throughout the play of Twelve Angry Men. I don’t believe it is as simple as A..B..C (Rose (I just lost the page and do not feel like going back and finding it…)) That quote shows that Juror Eight didn’t just go with the seasons (metaphorically of course) he went for what he thought was right, and had evidence to back it up. Juror Eight did something that all of the other jurors did not do, and that was proving his facts. Everyone had semi-good points, but no one really backed them up. For example, he brought up the old man, and how he had a bad foot. He reenacted the whole thing, how far it was from his bed to the window, the speed he walked. He even walked faster and faster when the other jurors asked him to. Juror Eight is definitely a static character because he never changes his mind once in the book, and that gave him the determination to win the case. Patience and perseverance were key in this case, Juror Eight could’ve caved anytime but he did not. When the vote was 1-11 in favor of guilty, any other juror could have easily just said guilty and is done with it. But Juror Eight patiently waited his turn in telling why he thought the boy wasn’t guilty. Eight did not stop churning out the examples and arguments until it was a unanimous vote for not guilty, which shows that Juror Eight is Logos because all he did was prove his facts that he brought
Sam
Block 7
Juror Eight An Argument where it is one versus eleven doesn’t seem to be fair does it. In Twelve Angry Men, a young boy from the slums is accused of stabbing his father. It is up to twelve men to decide his fate. Juror Eight was able to sway the vote because he connected with the other jurors on a personal level; he was very patient with everyone, listening to what they had to say, and used tangible evidence to recreate the crime scene itself in front of the twelve men. Because of Juror Eight’s denial of prejudiced beliefs and revolt against the status quo, he proves to be a hero throughout the play of Twelve Angry Men. I don’t believe it is as simple as A..B..C (Rose (I just lost the page and do not feel like going back and finding it…)) That quote shows that Juror Eight didn’t just go with the seasons (metaphorically of course) he went for what he thought was right, and had evidence to back it up. Juror Eight did something that all of the other jurors did not do, and that was proving his facts. Everyone had semi-good points, but no one really backed them up. For example, he brought up the old man, and how he had a bad foot. He reenacted the whole thing, how far it was from his bed to the window, the speed he walked. He even walked faster and faster when the other jurors asked him to. Juror Eight is definitely a static character because he never changes his mind once in the book, and that gave him the determination to win the case. Patience and perseverance were key in this case, Juror Eight could’ve caved anytime but he did not. When the vote was 1-11 in favor of guilty, any other juror could have easily just said guilty and is done with it. But Juror Eight patiently waited his turn in telling why he thought the boy wasn’t guilty. Eight did not stop churning out the examples and arguments until it was a unanimous vote for not guilty, which shows that Juror Eight is Logos because all he did was prove his facts that he brought