Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2021 August 3
| Entertainment desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 2 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 4 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
August 3[edit]
Court session scene from Runaway Jury[edit]
Context: Jury member elimination process in gun shooting case:
- Jury 1: Having an AK-47 overstates the case.
- Jury consultant Rankin Fitch: I want her. Yes, I want her.
- Attorney: No objection, Your Honor.
Attorney for defendant accepted this Jury 1 for jury pool.
What does "overstates the case" mean? Rizosome (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- What's the dialogue surrounding that line? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I added additional lines Rizosome (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Would probably help more if we had what came before the line in question. --Khajidha (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Specifically, what was the question put to this juror? The scene is jury selection. Prospective jurors are being examined. The issue at stake in the court case is whether an arms dealer was grossly negligent by selling the firearms used by a mass murderer. A case can be made (and is being made) that since owning firearms is lawful, selling them is also lawful. But how far does this argument extend? An opposing case can be made that assault weapons were not meant to be covered by the First Amendment. The juror thought that selling AK-47s might be problematic, but since no such heavy weapons were sold, bringing this into the argument turns it into an overstatement. --Lambiam 15:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Second Amendment, actually. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Specifically, what was the question put to this juror? The scene is jury selection. Prospective jurors are being examined. The issue at stake in the court case is whether an arms dealer was grossly negligent by selling the firearms used by a mass murderer. A case can be made (and is being made) that since owning firearms is lawful, selling them is also lawful. But how far does this argument extend? An opposing case can be made that assault weapons were not meant to be covered by the First Amendment. The juror thought that selling AK-47s might be problematic, but since no such heavy weapons were sold, bringing this into the argument turns it into an overstatement. --Lambiam 15:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)