... This is very unlike the rest of the jurors who didn't even give it a second thought and sheepishly voted guilty. These characteristics fit somewhat with juror eleven's in the way that they both always seemed to make deep impressions on the rest of the jurors who often pretended it was a futile attempt to change there minds. I would give Juror eight a medal for his logical way of thinking in a group where it was all against one. Whenever juror eight made a point most people would listen and understand his point because they knew it made sense. The only reason they never changed their minds sooner was because they didn't want to be the ones to be found wrong or unsure. Juror eight also made it clear to other jurors that they might be mixing in personal feelings and stereotypes with what was the truth and instead of thinking of the facts. This offended other jurors but again they knew he was somewhat true and they felt bad so they got in major arguments with him, juror three in particular. Juror three was the juror that kept the other guilty voters in the same mindset. He found ways to counteract juror eight's statements to keep his own personal feelings correct. Juror three is also vary angry about his own experiences with kids and he puts this anger towards his thought on why the kid is guilty instead of paying more attention to the facts and exhibits. He made other jurors feel bad about themselves like juror six who is from the ghetto himself and doesn't think that juror three's stereotype image is correct. He has no real deep thought in his opinions but he forcefully inflicts them onto the fellow jurors in a way that makes him look like a jerk. In order for him to see what he looks like I will get him a mirror. ...
