His original rhetoric appeal was also logos. He was basing his verdict choice on the logical information given in the court room. He was using all of the testimony and evidence to make what he thought was a logical decision. As the evening went on, I feel that his appeal was changed to ethos because of the juror that felt that he was innocent. He was impressed by this man because he was able to stand in front of the group and stick with his guilty verdict and not be swayed at all.
He tells the other jurors that the impact of their decision as a group will affect the boy’s life forever. He keeps his emotions in tact because he decides that he will concur with the group about the guilty verdict if they can convince him that it is the right verdict. Also, he uses consultation to try to help the group come to a consensus. The architect tries to seek group participation to make the ultimate decision. He can see that the others are set in their opinion because they want to fit in with the rest of the group.
There are lots of different types of people in one city. Jury duty allows them to get together and participate in discussing the freedoms and rights of their peers or the one being tried. In the play “Twelve Angry Men,” by Reginald Rose, twelve men with different personalities try to persuade each other towards their opinion. Juror Eight is the most effective because he is able to manipulate the other jurors with his calm, respectful, open-mindedness, and rational ways. Juror Eight is calm and respectful which helps him to manipulate the other jurors.
He is serious about his duties. He makes sure everyone sits down and starts off the discussion by giving all the jurors numbers followed by letting the make their votes. He is authoritative and fair to everyone. He is a sensitive person especially when someone objects to his control. He displays self-confident we can see that when he steps up to be foreman.
He was a professional high school coach, as such, he was able to use his role as a leader to champion his agenda while maintaining the sanity in the jury room. Even though, he voted guilty in the beginning proceeding he later changed his decision to not guilty after numerous facts and evidence were presented by his peers. For this reason, I choose him as one of the member on my legal team The next person I would like for him to be on my legal team is juror number eight, Henry Fonda. He is a man of integrity, patient and calm, but took his role in the jury process serious... ... middle of paper ... ...s vote to not guilty. When juror number seven, Jack Walden decided to change his vote from guilty to not guilty because that was the popular vote, and as such he wanted the proceedings to end so that he could go watch sports, George questioned his integrity.
He wants everyone to that, it's very easy to not be very discriminated by the way you look but the way your skin color. Mr. King is very descriptive of his words and his meaning for them. He can really make the world change if everyone really did follow. King's reason for the speech is because he is trying to make a difference, he is a very good well taught speaker and he speaks with so much enthusiasm and nothing could really stop him from anything he's doing.His argument is very reasoning to his defence and he eats so many reason to why the work works in its evil ways of discrimination. He wants everyone to that, it's very easy to not be very discriminated by the way you look but the way your skin color.
12 Angry Men 12 Angry men is about a group of men who are appointed as jury’s. They are put in a room until they could come up with a conclusion, on whether the boy who was convicted of murder is guilty or not. Jury foremen #1 was seated at the head of the table. Portrayed as a good leader, and a thoughtful listener. When there is a quarrel between the men, he was the one who would break if off and advice them to settle down and talk about it like civil men.
He is then questioned by another juror to why he wrote “guilty” but is questioning that the boy is not guilty. This is where he states “I don't believe I have to be loyal to one side or the other. I'm simply asking questions”. This shows the audience that he is not taking sides until he is convinced the man is guilty or innocent and that he just wants to finish his job in a respectable and proper manner. Juror #11 argues to Juror #7 “Who tells you that you have the right like this to play with a man's life?” His quote proves the point that he wants to do the job right and to deliver justice, not to side on one side because of a hunch or 1 piece of evidence.
The architect also uses inspirational appeal to convince his colleagues. He makes the other jurors consider the humanity of the situation. A mans life is at stake and he realizes the impact that his decision as well the rest of theirs will have on the man. The importance of values is portrayed. Likewise he keeps his own position non-emotional stating that he will concur with the group about the guilt, but only if they can convince him that he should.
He contributed in helping players understand the sport of football to its fullest potential. Vince is most known for having a very distinct impact on coaching in the NFL, and he did so by coaching his athletes in a kind of touch love way. The Family of Vince Lombardi has given this information out to the public. (Lombardi, Biography) Vince’s life consisted of many hard points, and many struggles, that had made him stronger as a person. When Vince was younger his dad always pressured him and wanted him to carry on the family legacy of being a butcher, and his dad would tell him that he wasn’t good enough to be the head coach of a NFL team.