So can someone clarify something to me: - A Time to Kill (1996) Discussion

All of those reasons seem justifiable.
Go buy yourself a gun my friend.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Well I already own several guns and I personally don't think any of the reasons nor the reason provided in the movie are justifiable. By allowing SLJ to get away with murder because of the circumstances you are now sending a message that it's OK to take the law into your own hands and become the judge, jury and executioner as you see fit. That's a pretty dangerous message.

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 4 years ago

Yes, yes it is

reply

[–] VanHellion (609) 4 years ago

I think that this was a really well-done film. Ideologies aside, I think the core of the defense was to prove that Carl Lee was temporarily insane at the time he killed the rapists. Despite him telling Jake, practically telegraphing what he was going to do, he wasn't really of sound mind. Like Jake's closing argument - put yourself in his place. That seems to be where the line is drawn.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Right but it seems like if he got off on an insanity plea they would have sent him to an institution or something. And yes I would totally want those two guys dead, they deserved to die, but he should have gone through proper channels. Did the rapists get what they deserved? Yeah pretty much, did they deserve a trial? Yes they did. Even the most deplorable criminals deserve a trial.

reply

[–] VanHellion (609) 4 years ago

Interesting point you make about the institution at the end of the film. I am thinking that would have been up to the District Attorney's office or (possibly) the judge to demand that. Buckley (the D.A.) felt they had an airtight case in a conviction I'm sure so, that thought wouldn't have even crossed his mind.

reply

[–] cyguration (3868) 3 years ago

And if they got off?

I know it's a "what if" scenario in the film, but we also see criminals go free in real life all the time.

For instance, the FBI sat on Hunter's laptop for a year, where he did FAR worse things than what was depicted in A Time To Kill, and to more than just one person (one of which included his -- at the time -- underage niece, Natalie Biden).

He was never arrested, never stood trial, never convicted, heck you can't even get the police to look at the evidence, but I'm sure the FBI will be knocking at your door if you dare share certain photos from that laptop online.

When do the victims of injustice get justice if there is no justice to be served by the judicature?

reply

[–] Iconoclast321 (375) 3 years ago

Agreed, and my (other) post said the same.

reply

[–] kwestmo (4122) 4 years ago

"OK to take the law into your own hands and become the judge, jury and executioner as you see fit."

That's what defunding the police will lead to.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Exactly except this time it will be thugs becoming the "judge, jury and executioner" against innocent people so they can steal all of their hard earned belongings.

reply

[–] Knish (1721) 4 years ago

Yeah, the meaning doesn't make any sense. It's just a sentimental leftist film. Quite entertaining though.

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

That is just perverted media stuff.

You have to watch films like a critic. Why is the writer trying to convince you of this? What is their agenda?

Stories are typically the personal propaganda of the writer. However, it is a popular notion among the stupid that a person accused of something is guilty and should be killed no matter what they did as it "wastes tax payers dollars" and how many times have you heard that in your life?

Appealing to the masses is a common way to make money.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

The thing is this completely contradicts the talking points of the left today, according to them even if it’s self defense you shouldn’t be allowed to kill a criminal even if they are a threat to you, although that may just apply to situations when the criminal is black, I guess if the criminal is white then it’s fair game. Typical liberal racism.

reply

[–] ItalianBuju (793) 3 years ago

When two scum bag racists rape a ten year old and torture her......not because they are sick pedophiles even, but because they see her as non human because of her skin colour and furthermore know that because of a bias 'justice' system, they likely wont get the punishment they deserve, thats a good time imo.

If they were going to prison for life, that would be different, but knowing they would not, that was the best option.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

I see so that's the standard, here's another question: How do you determine if they are going to get the punishment they deserve? Also how do you determine that the justice system is biased?

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Also let's say someone kills my cat and doesn't even view my cat as a living thing and they torture her and laugh while they do it. If the justice system will not give them the punishment they deserve I am allowed to mow them down with my AK-47 correct?

reply

[–] ItalianBuju (793) 3 years ago

I would likely mow someone does and torture them if they laid a finger on my animals, yes.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

I see, understandable but what happens when the person killing the molester without a trial accidentally kills the wrong person?

reply

[–] ItalianBuju (793) 3 years ago

There was no denying what those guys did.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

I know, I’m talking about the bigger picture what if someone decides to take the law into their own hands like SLJ did and they shoot the wrong person?

reply

[–] ItalianBuju (793) 3 years ago

They shouldn't be doing that. That is killing an innocent person. What would make that any different than the person a person responsible for any other murder.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Ok so there you go by allowing that precedent there’s a risk an innocent person could be murdered. If you allow people to become vigilantes and carry out what they believe is justice then people who don’t know the full facts of the case would be the ones becoming judge, jury and executioner. It’s a dangerous precedent to set

There’s a reason we have trials , it’s so that we know for a fact that the people who we take their lives away from really deserve it. It’s not a perfect system by any means but it’s far better than allowing some random citizen who may or may not know all the facts decide by themselves

Those two rapists should have been tried they should have been given life in prison where hopefully they would have been sodomized

reply

[–] ItalianBuju (793) 3 years ago

I clearly said there should not be a risk. You should not risk it.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Right but if you set a precedent that you are allowed to execute whoever you feel is guilty (like making it OK for SLJ to murder the two rapists) that is going to compel other people to murder others who let's say hear a rumor that they are a racist scumbag or a pedophile or a tax cheat, etc. Heck the way our media blows things out of proportion these days I would say the chances of that happening are very likely. The justice system should be making those decisions.

reply

[–] ItalianBuju (793) 3 years ago

Nope.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

The justice system should not be sanctioning murder, even if by a moral standard the person deserved to die. I'm all for doing everything it takes to ensure that the trial is as fair and unbiased as possible but no one has the right to take the law into their own hands, ordinary citizens often don't know all of the facts of the case and therefore cannot be trusted to make a fair decision.

reply

[–] ItalianBuju (793) 3 years ago

But that isn't what your post asked. You didn't ask when we thought the government should allow it. You asked when we thought it was justified.
I say if someone is a racist pos or hurts animals, it is. That was the answer to the question you first posed.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

And I pointed out many flaws in your logic. If you allow people to take the law into their own hands then there's a huge risk that innocent people could be killed, the vigilante could easily make a mistake and they don't know all of the facts of the case. What if it turns out the person wasn't a racist rapist? An innocent person would have just died.

There were also several questions I asked you that you dodged.

reply

[–] ItalianBuju (793) 3 years ago

No you didn't lol. Maybe in your mind but not reality.

You asked when it is time to kill and I answered.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Part of your response was it was only a "time to kill" when the rapist would have gotten off without the punishment he deserved, I asked how you could tell he would not get the punishment he deserved? Since SLJ blew those two guys away before they even saw the inside of a courtroom it's impossible to know as it would be in real life.

reply

[–] ItalianBuju (793) 3 years ago

They were white, the victim was black and they were in the South, on top of that. If I was was betting person, I know where my money would be.....they went as far as to acknowledge that in the film.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

So a white person accused of harming a black person in the south doesn’t have a right to a trial? By your system if someone wanted to have me out of the way all they'd have to do is falsely accuse me of raping a black girl and then some vigilante could come mow me down with an AR-15. Even if that person was later punished for killing the wrong person, I am still dead and I wouldn't have been if we hadn't instituted a system where people are allowed to take the law into their own hands.

Also your premise is an assumption I asked how you knew they wouldn’t get the punishment they deserved, how do you know the jury and judge would be biased? You never answered. You can’t just look at the color of someone’s skin and immediately know that, what if it turns out the jury would have given the rapist the death penalty? I’m really trying to work with you here but you are starting to show your own racism and prejudice

reply

[–] ItalianBuju (793) 3 years ago

You asked how it would be known and I answered.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Well I don’t accept your premise because it relies wholly on assumptions and prejudices, it seems you have an issue with race and I would suggest sensitivity training, thanks I guess for at least being honest

reply

[–] ItalianBuju (793) 3 years ago

You asked and I answered. It doesn't matter if you accept it or not, it is still my answer.

And it doesn't rely on assumptions. Your question was not asking if you assumed someone did something.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Your premise relies on assumptions thoufh, just take my reply as a friendly warning that if you try to propose that plan to someone you are probably going to receive a lot of blowback and it might be pretty humiliating

reply

[–] ItalianBuju (793) 3 years ago

I'll take my chances lol

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

OK, well I hope one day you learn to not see everything through the prism of race junior.

reply

[–] Iconoclast321 (375) 3 years ago

There is a difference between excusing something beforehand (something that MM felt guilty of doing, since he didn't call the sheriff) and exercising mercy afterwards.

reply

[–] Iconoclast321 (375) 3 years ago

I just posted on this very point. Here's my post:

https://moviechat.org/tt0117913/A-Time-to-Kill/6104837459e5cd52d81f0b32/In-my-eyes

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

That doesn’t answer my question. By your logic if a white person robs a black persons house and then the black person shoots him in cold blood all he has to do is find a jury who would have connected the dots that they would have done the same thing had the house belonged to a white man. So that means it’s ok to murder him?

Also please keep race out of this, the OP had literally nothing to do with race

reply

[–] Iconoclast321 (375) 3 years ago

Nono. I'm not saying it was okay at all - my point clearly said he was guilty and not insane. The point was that SLJ needed to get off b/c a white person would have. Under the same circumstances, with the same factors in play. Not talking about what is 'legal' or not. Certainly not saying it was okay beforehand, or even okay at all. Just talking about reality.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

There is absolutely no way to know a white person would have gotten off, that scenario was never presented to the jury which means this entire concept is baseless speculation.

Also the “imagine she’s white line” was so pointless and self righteous. All he had to say was “imagine she’s your daughter” and that would have been more impactful but no the film had to make it all about race because they wanted to pat themselves on the back for how virtuous and caring they are.

reply

[–] Iconoclast321 (375) 3 years ago

Not going to address your second point - that's your opinion, you are welcome to it.

As to your first point - anything is possible. But my judgment is that a white person (especially at that time, and in the South) would have gotten off. You can disagree if you want, but I stand by the point.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Well then I’m not going to address your point either - that’s your opinion, you are welcome to it.

reply

[–] Iconoclast321 (375) 3 years ago

I replied to your first point because it was relevant to my comment and not to your second point which was not relevant to my comment.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

And I’m not going to address any of your points from here on out.

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

You don't want to talk about race in the OP, but that's what the movie is about.

The movie isn't saying: "it's OK to kill someone in cold blood while they are in handcuffs as long as they did something horrible enough."

It's what the other guy was saying to you; that jury, that region, those people, they would have easily acquitted a defendant who was white. Hell, that's pretty much in line with Chris Cooper's testimony.

Of course you're right; no way to know if a white person would have gotten off. It's baseless speculation. But it's a deliberate choice to say "imagine she's white" vs "imagine she's your daughter", and it's a continuation of what Mcconaughey was struggling to realize throughout the movie. There was a whole conversation where Jackson is basically calling him out because even Mcconaughey is being motivated by race, despite his defending him.

The ending was trying finalizing this point, that the race did matter.

Obviously, if you don't believe that in real life, that's you. But it's inaccurate to say that this movie is justifying vigilantism. It definitely is not. I avoided the film for years because I thought that it was. Really, it's talking about when vigilantism is to be considered acceptable (not necessarily that it should be). Important nuance there.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 2 years ago

Why should anyone be acquitted for that crime? The fact that a white person gets away with murder doesn’t justify letting a black person get away with murder, it’s still murder. You’re justifying bad behavior with bad behavior with is so wrong.

The movie is very much justifying vigilantism. There’s no justification for deciding that someone won’t get convicted before ever seeing the inside of a courtroom so you gun them down in cold blood. Everyone deserves the right to due process, no matter how sick of a son of a bitch you are, but the movie is saying that some people don’t deserve due process if their crime is evil enough.

I get what the movie was trying to say, the point is it’s an incredibly stupid message.

EDIT: Before you say it, yes I would have given those two motherfuckers the death penalty had I been the judge.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (5733) 2 years ago

i never saw the movie

reply