Matthew McConaughey’s closing arguement from “A Time To Kill”.
Duration : 0:8:18
A Time To Kill Closing Arguement
Archived in the category: popup com
Posted by Kristen Meyers on 27 Jun 09 -
25 comments for “A Time To Kill Closing Arguement”
1
gmccall22
this scene changed …
this scene changed my opinion of white folks…mcconaughey was awesome
2
3
LovinTheDharma
This movie is …
This movie is incredibly moving and touching, that a father would kill for his child.
Stop with all the legal crap and comment about this awesome scene.
June 27th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
4
5023849465
You are right about …
You are right about McConaughey. He seems to be decorating his films lately.
5
fadhlirahim
I wish Matthew …
I wish Matthew McConaughey does a lot more of serious type character. All I see nowadays are very light characters in his recent movies. More like ‘holiday’ movies.
6
lordgronik
Obviously you’ve …
Obviously you’ve never heard of a little thing called jury nullification…
7
17Jamie17
PeterFirst, Henry …
PeterFirst, Henry we know its you making mutliple accounts to try n make it sound like more people agree with you. Youve slated people for ‘being a dumb american’ yet your making references to American Legal System … What a loser.
8
PeterFirthFan
Carl was a MURDERER …
Carl was a MURDERER and in reality he would have been jailed for life for first degree murder.
9
xXEimearDHXx
Then so is Carl. …
Then so is Carl. Thank you for proving my own point for me.
10
11
17Jamie17
Carl Lee was found …
Carl Lee was found innocent by a court of law therefore he is innocent so therefore not a murderer. And i dont see what the National Socialists have to do with anything here ?
12
17Jamie17
Im telling you as a …
Im telling you as a law student that Carl Lee is NOT a murderer as he could not form the specific intent required. If this was a real case you could be sued for defamtion as he was found innocent. Your a stupid little kid and really need to learn when to shut up.
13
14
15
honeegrrl
I have one but not …
I have one but not two words to say to you:
GET HELP!
16
17
honeegrrl
I think most men …
I think most men who love their daughters would agree with what Carl Lee Haley. All he knows is that these two men raped his daughter and he got mad and took the law into his own hands.
18
kylexysbiggestfan
those men were not …
those men were not innocent they raped a 10 year old girl. Maybe if you knew what it felt like to be raped then you would think differently about those so called innocent men. Have you even watched the whole movie?
19
20
17Jamie17
Your a stupid …
Your a stupid little 14 year old kid that knows nothing at all about how the law on homicide works. Im a law student and CAN tell you that Carl Lee would not be classed as a MURDERER. At worst he would be an INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER due to his mental instability!
Now shut the up you stupid little kid.
June 27th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
21
obsessedjc54
maybe u should quit …
maybe u should quit being such a jerk. btw, she’s a girl not a boy dipshit
22
dirkwears
they wern’t …
they wern’t innocent at all you butt head. Did you actually watch the movie?? Deeer
23
aero1927
racism does too… …
racism does too…at the beginning of the movie the two so called innocent guys were throwing beer cans at people’s houses and do you happen to know who’s houses they were omg you are not gonna believe this….they were all african americans……..now doesn’t that just suck for your so called logic…..and furthermore the kkk was designed because of racism and segregation and that was a main part in the movie….learn how to pay attention to those BIG parts before u go and take a popcorn break
24
aero1927
STOP writing your …
STOP writing your little pathetic hate comments to people…………dude you need to do something with your life besides this……………. and if someone wants to say something NICE about the movie lave them the HECK ALONE!
25
17Jamie17
Yes he would have …
Yes he would have been found innocent as he doesnt have the mens rea for the crime! His specific intent to kill is reduced by statutory defences of provocation and diminished responsibilites. This would make it Unlawful Act Manslaughter … but because of his insanity (M Naughten Rules) he was found not responsible for his actions! Therefore no specific intent to kill therefore he is not a murderer, now shut up youve been told by actual law students!