In the movie 12 Angry Men, 12 jurors are placed in a room to discuss a first degree murder case. Each has a very different characteristic from the next, but each contributes equally to the plot of the story. Each juror can be classified as the average “everyday” person; the quiet but analytical, the loud and stubborn or the mediator. The juror who most resembles me is juror #11. I am most like him because he is impartial, empathetic and analytical. Juror #11 appears to be an excellent juror because he is impartial, both about the opinions of the other jurors and about the case. He also wants to find out the truth about the whole affair and not just leave as soon as possible to return home. An example of this is when he questions the other jurors about the evidence and testimony given by the witnesses. He is then asked by another juror why he wrote "guilty", but he wonders if the boy is not guilty. This is where he declared: “I don’t believe I have to be loyal to one side or the other. I’m just asking questions.” This shows the audience that he is not taking sides until he is convinced that the man is guilty or innocent and that he simply wants to finish his job in a respectable and proper manner. Juror No. 11 argues with Juror No. 7: “Who tells you that you have the right to play like this with a man’s life? His quote proves that he wants to do his job well and do justice, not side with one side because of a hunch or a piece of evidence. I find myself having the same characteristic because in situations where I should choose sides, I try to be impartial and not side with one party until I am sure that they is right or enough evidence is presented that I can be satisfied with assuming. the party is okay,...... middle of paper ......with. Another piece of evidence was the elderly woman across the train platform who saw the murder and swears it was the boy, but it's not easy to identify faces, especially across 2 train cars of the train where she would be very far from the real apartment of the murder. Finally, Juror #11 stated that the boy would not return 3 hours after the murder, he would most likely try to escape somewhere far away to avoid being charged, without returning directly to the scene of the crime. It can also be said that he was lying about going to the movies since he didn't remember the movie he saw, but when faced with fear, stress, or anger, their minds can go blank. An example of this is war, where soldiers train for months and months, but when they finally see the bloodshed, they forget everything they learned in basic training. From here I say the 18 year old boy is not guilty.