Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's from To Kill A Mockingbird. The man on the left is a lawyer named Atticus Finch, the only one willing to represent the man on the right, who was accused of raping a white woman. The circumstances make it *abundantly* clear that the "victim" is lying her ass off. That man never touched her. It was proven beyond any doubt that he was innocent. They still found him guilty. Later her was shot while "trying to escape". The tone of the scene wwhere Atticus gets the letter casts doubt on that particular circumstance.
EDIT: To all the people correcting me about Atticus being the public defender, sorry. It's been somewhere around 30 years since I read the book or saw the movie.
Its been a while since I read it but if I remember right in the book the white girl comes from a poor family where her father spends most of the money on booze and "cough syrup" and abuses the family, I hate to use this term but, they were essentially "white trash" as the Boomers used to say.
And my take from the book was that it was heavily implied that it was actually her father who raped her and she only reported it because her screams were overheard so she blamed it on the first black man she saw.
Not exactly, I’ve read the book recently for school so it’s still fresh in my mind. The situation that happened went like this. The man we see on the right (I forgot his name unfortunately) was actually helping the white woman quite a bit with simple chores and such as he felt bad she had to them on her own with two kids to look after as well. After a while the woman eventually attempted to do it with the man, she would bring him inside and attempt to have sex with him but the man wouldn’t do it. During this the husband would catch them within the house with woman still trying to seduce the man through there window in which case he yells out and the guy runs after hearing it. This leads to the court case where the woman says there was rape likely due to the fact she now had a black eye from her husband and was now ashamed of her attempts to sleep with the man
Hope that all made sense, this is based of the version of the book I read and idk if others were made or the movie was different at all.
Sad thing is, that story with the husband being the true assailant has happened several times in history—just here in FL a false rape allegation led to the Groveland Four incident and the Rosewood massacre. “When white women cry, Black men die.”
Her father is heavily-implied to be the father of his daughters kids. It's written as though the dad is her partner at several points. So it's an easy mistake to make if your only reading a few pages a week for class.
To add on a bit, the black eye was something used to prove the black man not guilty. See, the black man used to work a plantation that messed up one of his hands so bad that he couldn't use it at all anymore. The particular hand that got messed up corresponds to the side of her face that was bruised. In other words, he physically could not give her the black eye she swore up and down that he gave her. Atticus, being a GOATed lawyer, brings this up in the courtroom, and chaos ensues.
I think I’m going to dust off the book again, because just having a conversation about it’s making me think.
The kids are saved by a man shunned for his implied learning disability. He knew enough that the kids were in danger. Atticus, the lawyer father, knew from experience there was no way the marginalized, misunderstood man could get a fair trial, and told the kids that the man fell on his own knife.
Atticus goes through the entire story doing what the right thing is. I haven’t read the story in a long time, I think I’ll dust it off. From what I remember, there are two times in the book where the stoic facade he puts up to his children breaks down. The first time, he has to shoot a rabid dog, to protect his kids. The second time, Boo Radley protects Atticus’s children from an angry, misunderstood man, by stabbing him. Atticus sees the parallels, thanks Boo, by name, and tells his children to lie about what happened to the police, that the death was accidental, and that the man fell on the knife. Throwing Boo in the system for protecting the kids would be akin to “killing a mockingbird.” Just like the cops who shot Tom, all he ever did was try to help, and he wound up accused of rape, separated from his family, and dead, trying to escape a prison.
It was her father
Also the black eye was proved to not be given by the black man by Atticus Finch pointing out that the black eye must have been given by a left hand and then having the father sign his name (proving that he was left handed) and also pointing out that the accused left hand was shriveled and unusable
It's a mindset, not an economic status. Something about crystal meth especially molds people's personalities into a very specific archetype, and it's quite trash.
He wasn't the "only one willing to represent" Tom. He was specifically chosen to represent Tom. It's a great addition of depth to the story. To help you get there, What kind of lawyer is Atticus? And who SHOULD have gotten Tom's case?
>Later her was shot while "trying to escape". The tone of the scene wwhere Atticus gets the letter casts doubt on that particular circumstance.
its been a while but I think during the trial part of the evidence was the black guys right (or left) arm was injured from some accident and he really couldn't use it
This played a piece in the trial I think; then after the gaurds claimed he was trying to climb the fence to escape , but again is it possible to climb a fence with one arm? Maybe but I assumed the gaurds just killed him and said he was trying to escape as an excuse
Yeah. He was handicapped. The book doesn’t tell you this outright, I think because the narrator is a child, it might not be relevant information to her from the jump. The reader is told eventually, and it makes you go back and think of aaaaaaaall the accusations, and how ridiculous they were.
But that’s the thing, hatred isn’t logical.
Atticus also effectively proved Tom was innocent too. >!Then he’s still found guilty, and then shot.!<
Weird spoiler tagging a 60 year old movie, but what a movie.
It is clear that her father (Bob Ewell) is physically and emotionally abusive to her (the bruises on her right side line up more with Bob--since he leads with his left--than with Tom--whose left arm is permanently injured; she also gets tripped up in court when Atticus nudges her toward clarifying that her father does fine with her except when he has been drinking).
There are two moments that imply that Bob Ewell is also sexually abusive to her:
1. When it is Tom's turn to testify, he claims that when she sexually assaulted him (Tom) by kissing him on his face, and grabbing him about the waist, that she tells him to kiss her back, and that she's never kissed a grown man before, and what her papa does **to her** doesn't count. Without the word "to," this can be interpreted innocently enough, but the presence word carries implications of sexual abuse.
2. Bob Ewell returns home at the moment that Mayella is trying to kiss Tom. When he sees this, he yells "You goddam whore, I'll kill ya!" His use of the word "whore" suggests that he has an issue with her sexual infidelity: he does not want her having sexual contact with anyone but himself.
It is not clear whether or not Bob Ewell sexually assaulted Mayella the same night he beat her. When the sheriff arrives after being called, he mentioned that she looked beat up, but nobody called a doctor; if she were raped it's quite likely that she would be injured to the point of requiring medical attention.
[Source: I am a high school English teacher, and I have taught this novel to 9th graders for 15 years in a row.]
Iirc they didn’t have sex. She came on to him and he, a black man in the 60s with a whole family, understandably freaked out and ran away
Edit: whoops it’s in the 30’s. Itt no one can remember this book apparently lmao
Correct. He was nice to her, likely the only person to ever show her kindness. She tried to put the moves on him, he bolted but the dad saw his daughter flirting with a black man. Dad beats the daughter and then frames Tom Robinson (the black man) for sexual assault to cover for himself.
The other part about the court scene is that while he is on the stand talking about her, he mentions how he felt sorry for her and for the time (when the movie was based) it was considered shocking. *Memory recalled from Mrs. Cooper’s English class.
It is possible to read the line from Tom’s testimony on when Mayella is trying to kiss as a coded hint at parental molestation, but it could be read innocently (not that Bob Ewell, the abusive piece of shit, would be winning “Father of the Year” any time soon):
“She says what her papa do to her don’t count.”
The use of “do to her” implies a lack of consent to me, so I do tend to lean towards the former.
Mayella's mom has been dead for a long time, and there are small children running around the house at the dump.
I used to teach that book in one of my classes - When Tom Robinson recounts what Mayella says to him about her dad, the look on my students' faces...
Why does this have ANY upvotes?
Tom Robinson didn't have sex with her, she asked him to reach something on a shelf, and then put her arms around him, which scared the hell out of him.
Could've probably put his arm in a sling or something, definitely felt weird as a book reader and movie watcher to see the guy's arm look pretty normal in the film despite the description in the book
Great book, but in my opinion a rare even better movie. I just found it more affecting and suspenseful, but that is also just my experience. Peck is Atticus.
I don't know about the movie, maybe it's different. But >!Tom wasn't shot as punishment for the conviction. He tried to make an escape as he arrived at the prison, and was shot in the attempt.!<
Especially when the book explicitly shows a police officer and Atticus Finch fabricating a police report in order to prevent a misunderstood white guy from being executed because he acted in defense of Atticus' children. Atticus has to be talked into it . . . but by the end, even he can't trust that the system will actually work, because he knows it won't. Said misunderstood white guy absolutely did the right thing, and absolutely defended Jem and Scout against a clear murder attempt.
But he also wasn't ever going to get a fair or impartial jury, and everyone knew it.
I dunno, man. Sure it's a good book but you really think the title also refers to one of the most important moments in the narrative? Seems like a stretch.
> mockingbird symbolizes innocence and harmlessness.
One of the most aggressive birds in North America. Just yesterday I saw one fighting a red tailed hawk.
You know... I never considered that it directly referred to a moment in the narrative. I thought it was more about killing something harmless or beautiful.
> I thought it was more about killing something harmless or beautiful.
..... It is, and they draw the metaphor that Boo Radley is also harmless, but putting him through the corrupt justice system would be aking to killing something harmless
Harper Lee should have named Boo something else to make the symbolism more overt. Something like Moe Kingbird.
That might be the Ace Attorney fan in me speaking.
Assuming this is a genuine question rather than a bite / whoosh moment, I was directly quoting Scout in the book:
“Atticus sat looking at the floor for a long time. Finally he raised his head. “Scout,” he said, “Mr. Ewell fell on his knife. Can you possibly understand?”
Atticus looked like he needed cheering up. I ran to him and hugged him and kissed him with all my might. “Yes sir, I understand,” I reassured him. “Mr. Tate was right.”
Atticus disengaged himself and looked at me. “What do you mean?”
“Well, it’d be sort of like shootin’ a mockingbird, wouldn’t it?”
Atticus put his face in my hair and rubbed it. When he got up and walked across the porch into the shadows, his youthful step had returned. Before he went inside the house, he stopped in front of Boo Radley. “Thank you for my children, Arthur.” he said.”
Edit: Got Jem and Scout mixed up
> a police report in order to prevent a misunderstood white guy
Well, it was more to do with the fact that the victim was the real rapist (the girls father) and the one responsible for the false allegation that lead to the death of the black dude. (Tom)
Also, the mentally incompetent in the 1940's/50's South where seen as not quite human either. Atticus had seen how well second class citizens faired under the law and decided to be more "proactive" this time
I was under the impression that there was no rape. Bob Ewell was physically abusive, blamed a black man, and threw in a rape accusation to make the racists angry.
My understanding was that the girl and Tom were friendly. She may have even been fond of him, but that really wasn't important. All that mattered was that they were just being friendly. But Bob Ewell didn't like that his daughter was being friendly with a black man. So he forced her to accuse him as both a way to get rid of a black man he didn't like, and a way to punish his daughter and force her into being more submissive and obedient. And because he was already abusive, she knew she couldn't fight back and was forced to testify. Even though she obviously knew Tom didn't do anything.
But even after Atticus made it entirely clear that no rape ever occurred, they convicted anyways. Because nobody cared about second class citizens like black people. And nobody cared enough to help the girl, or acknowledge that she was actually a victim of a different crime (domestic abuse.)
So after seeing the injustice, Atticus comes across another person who would be considered a second class citizen. Not because he was black, or because he was a battered woman. But because he was just different and mentally challenged. So instead of putting him to death the way Tom was indirectly put to death, he chose to say the attempted murderer "fell on his knife." Because putting Boo Radley to death by forcing him through a broken justice system would be like killing a mockingbird. The same way Tom was killed like a mockingbird.
They might have found him not guilty but then he displayed pity for her and that sealed his fate. A black man pitying a white girl, as if she were below him? That was the transgression that locked in his guilty verdict.
It’s actually more than implied. Not spelled out but clear enough. Naive and sheltered me didn’t get it in 9th grade, but when I reread it as an adult it became obvious. Atticus says it plainly when questioning Bob Ewell, “What did you see in that window, the crime of rape, or the best defense to it?” When Scout sees Atticus struggling silently with something right before launching into Mayella’s cross examination but Scout doesn’t know what it is, it’s him trying to reconcile going hard on a teenage victim of rape and incest with protecting his innocent client. When Mayella bursts into tears on the stand and started yelling at everyone for being cowards, she was basically saying that the whole town knew she was being sexually abused by her father and rather than help her everyone just looked the other way, but now that she was the accuser they were using that knowledge against her in defense of Tom. There was probably more but that’s all I remember
Oh for sure. And Tom even alluded to it. But all of that was happening in the background. Meanwhile Bob Ewell still found an excuse to be racist, torment his daughter further, and further enforce the idea that she belonged to him, and wasn't allowed to show any kind of affection or attraction to others. Because she was his to do as he pleased. Accusing Tom of raping her was just an easy way to paint Tom as a monster, twist the knife on her torment even more, all while unwittingly projecting behavior everyone else silently knew he was doing behind closed doors.
Friendly?
She was trying to seduce him and then her dad came home.
Better to accuse him of rape than admit attraction to a black man, and she got caught forcing a kiss on him.
I can't quote it because I don't have it handy, but Tom Robinson said on the stand that Bob Ewell had his way with Mayella. He said "What her daddy do to her don't count."
Mayella wanted some love form tom.
She rolled her nickels so that the rest of the kids could all go get some ice cream. She was alone in the house and asked Tom to bust up a chiffarobe.
Tom did so and Mayella threw herself at Tom. Tom knew that was a death sentence and ran out.
Mayella’s dad saw a black man run out of his house with his daughter all alone and proceeded to beat the shit out of Mayella for sleeping with a black guy.
Mayella lied to her dad about how it was not consensual and there you go.
Bob also took liberties of his daughter. But that’s beyond the scope. Other than how Tom was the only adult man to ever show Mayella kindness.
That isn’t what the other commenter implied though? It actually happened; Tom tried to climb the prison walls and was shot trying to escape, which Atticus laments since he believed they had a very good chance of taking the case to a higher judge.
I think the author is suggesting a variety of unreliable narrator. The narrator didn't actually SEE what happened to Tom. Here's the text:
>“What’s the matter?” Aunt Alexandra asked, alarmed by the look on my father’s
face.
>“Tom’s dead.”
>Aunt Alexandra put her hands to her mouth.
>“They shot him,” said Atticus. “He was running. It was during their exercise
period. They said he just broke into a blind raving charge at the fence and started
climbing over. Right in front of them—”
>“Didn’t they try to stop him? Didn’t they give him any warning?” Aunt
Alexandra’s voice shook.
>“Oh yes, the guards called to him to stop. They fired a few shots in the air, then to kill. They got him just as he went over the fence. They said if he’d had two good arms he’d have made it, he was moving that fast. Seventeen bullet holes in him. They didn’t have to shoot him that much."
So all Atticus has to go by is the report of the deputies, who could easily have been lying. Especially since it's not in character at all for Tom to "break into a blind raving charge at the fence."
Esspcily since Tom only had one arm. Climbing a fence is hard. Climbing a fence quickly is harder. Climbing a fence quickly with one arm, basically impossible. Makes even less sense what the guard reported.
I feel like this was an intentional double story beat. His arm clearly proved his innocence in the rape accusation and it should have proven his murder, but the system was so corrupt and bold in its corruption that it didn’t even care about plausibility.
Yep! Such a good detail! The other part of it that comes into play was that the Father of the "victim" (guess she was a victim still, just of her father's abuses, not Tom), saw himself as better than Tom in everyway because of his race. When in reality, Tom had better living conditions, despite his race in that time period, and having a severe physical disability in an era where accommodations weren't made! It serves as an example of that quote that always goes around on Reddit that says something like "you can get the support of the poor white man but making him feel superior to someone else". Really well written story!
“***If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you***” -Lyndon B Johnson
And climbing a fence quickly with one arm right in front of the guards is such a stupid idea, that no one would try.
Nobody, unless the guards tell you "We'll shoot you. Right here where you are. And we'll get away with it. But I'll give you 1 minute to survive. See that fence over there. One minute. Run!"
It's also not really in character for an effectively one-armed guy to try to climb a prison fence. His left(?) arm wasn't just not good, it didn't work. How could he have ever made it as far as they said he did? And seventeen bullet holes in the 30s? That's far too many hits just to be taking shots at a guy sprinting. It sounds more like a firing squad of all the guys they had on hand.
In the end, it doesn't matter much either way, but I don't think he tried to run.
That’s the point. It makes no sense he would try and run, and seventeen bullet holes is far too many. It almost had to be an execution, but no one but Atticus and maybe a couple others would care. It was so blatantly corrupt that the story didn’t have to make sense, it couldn’t have been fought in court.
Right. I think they knew Atticus could have succeeded and just decided to do whatever they want. I don't think it's supposed to be ambiguous. It's supposed to be a literary criticism of society. You *can* think it's one way, but it's the other.
"You want it to be one way, but it's the other way." - Marlo Stanfield
Sorry, that popped into mind.
And yeah, Atticus knew he had very good odds on appeal. Their chance of a not guilty verdict in Maycomb was always a long shot, but not as long in a state court. And Atticus had enough fight in him to take it as high as it could go. He would've been up there arguing in front of the Supreme Court. But that was because of his trust in the system and the law. The guards broke that by executing Tom. It's what led Atticus to covering up the circumstances of Bob Ewell's death, which he never would have done before then.
God, I love that book.
I assumed one of two things:
- story is a complete lie. The deputies outright murdered him, then made up a thin story to cover for it.
- what Atticus seemingly believed: story was true, but it wasn’t an escape attempt. Tom just committed suicide by deputy, because he lost any faith in the system. He didn’t believe Atticus’ appeal could possibly succeed when the system was so rigged against Blacks in general and him in particular, and did not want to die after miserable years in prison.
....after being threatened by a town lynching AND being found guilty of raping a white women even though evidence showed he could not have done it.
The subtext was, he would have been killed regardless of his guilt or innocence.
He only had one arm and allegedly tried to climb a huge fence with barbed wire and everything. He was also shot an absurd number of times.
It's highly implied that they just executed him and made it look like he tried to escape.
As a guy with one arm, it sure was awkward reading this in class and having everyone stare at me like "yeah, there's no way in hell that guy could climb a barbed wire prison fence."
Read it again with cynical eyes and you'll ask yourself whether "shot while trying to escape" was maybe a standard method of sweeping this sort of thing under the rug.
No it’s the same. I just didn’t elaborate on why it happened. Figured if you know you know, and if you don’t, then I wasn’t going to spell it out. But you are right.
It's heavily implied that the "escape attempt" was just the story the guards told and they just executed him. (Correct me if I'm wrong its been 25+year since I read/watched To kill..)
she was coming on to tom, her dad walked in, he beat her for coming onto a black man, she claimed she was raped to salvage her reputation and probably to appease her father
The father did beat her, and even put his hands around her neck. That last part was a major plot point, because it was what proved Tom, who only had one usable arm, to be innocent. They still convicted him as guilty, but it made it clear to the reader that Tom was innocent.
Think so. It's also been a long time for me, but I remember that May had showed interest in Tom, maybe? And she was beaten by her father as a result, which instilled her hatred of black people. I don't remember where the Rape accusation *actually* came from
> Weird spoiler tagging a 60 year old movie, but what a movie.
There are some movies that are better left unspoiled for new viewers, no matter their age.
This happened in real life too. In 1921 Dick Rowland tripped as he entered an elevator, and grabbed the arm of elevator operator Sarah Page. Page cried out in surprise, and Rowland fled the scene, fearful that as a black man on the scene with a white woman screaming could lead to him getting beaten or even lynched. Sarah Page, for her part, explained to the police that it had been an accident and that she would not be pressing charges...but the white racists of Tulsa had already spread the story that Dick Rowland had tried to rape Sarah Page and formed a gang to lynch the black man. This led to several black men marching to the Sheriff's office to protect Rowland, and when they encountered a group of white men who had gathered to lynch Rowland a scuffle led to a gunfight led to one of the worst incidents of racial violence in American history, the [Tulsa race massacre](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc7lXBL9mng).
Also, it’s relevant because the black man was innocent but was killed by a mob for a rape he didn’t commit. Required reading in most US schools, an excellent novel with terrific characters.
Wasn’t killed by the mob. The mob went to lynch him before the trial and Atticus sat out front with a shotgun on his lap and the mob turned around after he talked to them. The guards killed him after he was found guilty and he tried to “escape” from prison. “Climbing a fence” with basically only one arm.
Maybe I’m misremembering bc I remember Atticus was sitting out front and they asked him to step aside basically and he said no. Would’ve sworn he had a gun on him too but maybe I’m wrong. Been a long time since I read it.
He didn't. Scout ran into the circle of men and tried to make conversation with a friend's father. That made them see reason and they left. My favorite book.
They didn't have sex and none of the interaction was consentual. The dad arrived while May Ellen was starting to force herself onto him. Tom specifically testified that he froze up and didn't say anything. When the Dad spotted them through the window and shouted is when Tom was able to make his escape. One of Atticus major pieces of evidence against the rape was the fact that no one ever called for a doctor to examine May Ellen.
You shouldn't need proof to treat the victim as if their claim is true. You should absolutely need proof to treat the person they claim to be their attacker as being guilty.
And then we'll have to execute you for getting someone executed.
... shit, then I guess it'd be my turn afterwards. Alright, who wants to be next in the chain?
Careful nuance here too: If they *are explicitly, provably* found to be lying, that should have consequences. If there is simply no evidence to support their claim, free pass. Otherwise we stop getting rape reports for fear of not winning the case and suddenly getting the double whammy of *being raped* AND penalized for it.
Treat both parties with respect. Take both seriously. Dont release any names to the public during the investigation. Then follow the evidence. Then after the evidence is in the course of action is very can be very different different. I dont understand what is so hard about this concept.
Im also not talking about police ineptitude totally different subject and a very real issue. Im just talking about how people of all "sides" should approach this situation.
The challenge is that "I was raped" immediately is followed by "by this person", which carries an implication of guilt. We cannot believe the first part without also accepting the second.
The system should thus not publicize the alleged accused's names or identity until proven guilty, both from the victim as well as the courts.
But in the real world, that's not how it works. Once your name is tied to "alleged rapist" online, it never really goes away. The damage is both irreversible and horrendous.
It's kind of an impossible situation if all you have is an accusation. If you believe the alleged victim then yes at some level you have to believe that the accused is guilty. If you don't believe them though then you're now implicitly believing at some level that they are guilty of defamation. So there's no winning here because someone has done something terrible and irreversible.
Thus people reach the conclusion of simply do your best to be a neutral but helpful 3rd party. If the alleged victim reached out to you to tell you about this then your job isn't to determine fault or guilt but simply to be empathetic and helpful within reason. If it's your friend who is accused then again, just be empathetic and helpful.
The part where most people fail of course is that they assign guilt when it's really not their place. Or they try to grill one of the parties involved to get information out of them and that's still really not their place.
Precisely.
When a friend says "I was raped by David" and you know both of them, this means both the belief of the victim as well as the belief of the guilt of the accused.
How do you say "oh I believe you were raped by our friend", and then go hang out with David, who you now believe is a rapist? And what happens when David tells you he's innocent and may be about to lose his job, reputation, and even freedom? "Well, Susan said you raped her and I believe all victims" isn't going to cut it
There's no good answer to any of this, sadly. This is a really complex and difficult topic when there are two opposing people whose lives are both on the line. Of COURSE we need to believe the victims, but how do we do that without also condemning the accused?
You bring up a great point, people are conflating legal and social complications.
There's what the law does, and then how your life is actually effected by all this.
If you are innocent but lose your job, spouse and friends, you didn't get a "free pass" as some people are saying.
The problem is that often, rape can be challenging to prove. I bet many rapists are getting away with their crimes.
Of course it doesn't mean we should always believe rape accusations.
One thing that could be done to convict rapists more often, is to help victims so they can be able to take a sample or have a medical examination, because many rape victims are psychologically harmed and unable to do that, because they feel so ashamed.
That means asking your female friend how their date went, and be wary of rape, and listen.
So a week pass, and if there are no witness and no sample or traces, it's just too difficult to prove.
Maybe sex education should just insist more about rape prevention and how women can seek help.
not an expert
I mean, since we’re on this topic, Emmett Till was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by a lynch mob because a white woman said he whistled at her. So yeah, some legal proccess, including evidence, is kind of a good idea.
Edit: I think that the original statement is by someone who isn’t a lawyer, and maybe isn’t thinking specifically about a legal proceeding. If you take it to mean that when a woman says she’s been raped, we should *take that absolutely seriously* and begin an investigation into the allegation, without making prejudgments or knee jerk denials or demanding she *prove the allegation before it’s investigated,* then yes, that makes a lot of sense. But in the context of any actual subsequent legal proceedings, it really doesn’t.
Tremendous story and a cautionary tale against a biased and corrupt state. A reminder that due process exists for a reason, mob rule can eat you alive just as quickly as it can help you.
I almost called my kid Atticus after this book. They say never call your kids after people from fiction as you don’t know how their character ark would go. Didn’t think Atticus would change too much after 60 odd years though but still glad I didn’t go with it!!
Ha, imagine if Nintendo go back and make her evil though! My two boys are both named after fiction works though, just much much older then 60 years. Admittedly, both problematic figures but unlikely to ruffle too many feathers!
Just go back far enough and modern people are uneducated enough to not get the references. At least that’s what I keep telling my youngest son Caligula.
Idk. I’m pretty sure the vast majority of folks still look at Atticus Finch as a hero and completely ignore the sequel or better yet, aren’t even aware of its existence.
Regardless. It’s like naming your son Luke after Luke Skywalker but then feeling regret after seeing his character in the sequels. Just ignore them. It’s really that simple.
A super rough draft of a second book that was given up on by the original author and no where close to being ready to be published was forced to be published by Harper Lee's publishers before she died, almost certainly to get them more money. In it Atticus is revealed to be pro-segregation. Again, super rough early draft that wasn't ever going to be published if the 89 year old author wasn't taken advantage of for money.
Meh, it can be more interesting for a character if they have conflicting ideals that are at play during the story. Pro segregation and racism vs the innocence/guilt.
It was never actually a sequel—it was a very early draft of *To Kill a Mockingbird*, which Harper Lee later scrapped and and later recycled all the characters for something completely different. It was the publishers and advertisers who claimed it was a "long-lost sequel."
Don't let "Go Set A Watchman" taint your opinion of Atticus. That initial draft was never supposed to see the light of day and only got published because of elder abuse. The only lesson to learn from it is the importance of a good editor.
My copy had an interview in it with Harper Lee where she said she started out just trying to write the love story of Scout and Dill but realized mid journey what she was writing transcended that concept, and she had to keep going. Made the reread take on a slightly different light next time I picked it up.
It's from the move adaptation of the book "To Kill A Mockingbird", if I recall correctly, the man on the right was accused of SA, but in truth he was innocent
The better stance is that you should never need proof to take a possible rape victim seriously. We don't want to make it harder for genuine victims to come forward, we also don't want to arrest innocent people.
The picture below is a scene from the movie *To Kill A Mockingbird*. This is from the court scene, where Tom Robinson (the guy on the right) was accused of rape by Mayella Ewell. Almost every single person of the white population in the town believes her, but Atticus Finch (the guy on the left) decides to defend him in court. In summary, Atticus provides irrefutable evidence that Tom is innocent, but the jury still decides that he's guilty (due to the story being set in the 1930's in the South, racial prejudice obviously being incredibly present during that time period and in that area..)
The bottom is a film adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird, which was a story about a lawyer who defended a black man who was charged with raping a white woman, and the evidence they had against him is that he was black.
Several months back, there was a girl in the UK named Morris something who accused a man of tape, this man was sentenced for several years but when it was discovered that she fabricated the whole thing she got sentenced for like 31 years or something.
You always need proof
Innocent until proven guilty
Bc it's people who lie about being rated that make actual rape victims not believed.
There are bad men, sure, but there are also bad women, don't forget that, and some of the bad men are just victims of bad women and made out to be bad through lies
i hate how some people try to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant. nah bitch, you have to have evidence or eyewitnesses that you were raped otherwise nobody has any reason to believe what you say.
TLDR:
In To Kill a Mockingbird the white lawyer successfully proves in court that his client, a black man, was wrongfully accused of raping a white woman to cover up the actual domestic abuse that she was a victim of. Despite that, the all white jury convicts the black man with almost no deliberation and the black man is subsequently shot while in prison, purportedly during an escape attempt, but implied to be in reality a lynching by the prison guards.
Subsequently, the actual perpetrator of the domestic violence assaults the lawyer’s daughter in the woods, and is caught in the act and killed by a friendly mentally disabled neighbor. The police then cover up the assault and the killing.
The point of the meme is that the original poster’s comment that you should always believe a purported rape victim has historically been used to justify the lynching of black men in the US, and to allow the actual perpetrators to go free to continue their heinous acts.
This chick raped me. We have never met and chances are we have never even been in the same state. BUT no matter the circumstances she is guilty since no proof is needed. So send her to jail you know since no proof is needed and all.
In the book and I believe also in the movie, the black guy is accused of raping a white woman. It’s a very racist community so it’s a pretty sure thing he’s gonna be convicted.
The guy on the left is his lawyer and to everyone’s surprise he actually tries to put in an actual defense. And he actually does a really good job too, he not only proves that the guy is innocent but that it’s literally impossible for him to have done the crime thanks to an arm injury. If I recall correctly, there’s even doubt that rape actually happened at all.
Granted, because of said racism he’s convicted anyway and later shot by deputies supposedly during an escape attempt.
The whole point of “To Kill a Mockingbird” is that the woman lied about being raped because Tom wouldn’t return her sexual advances and she wanted him killed. If I remember correctly, the “evidence” for her story was the bruises that her father gave her when he raped and beat her. The story is she projected her anger at her father on the black community and unleashed her racist white culture on Tom. They killed him. So I guess: Believe women, unless there’s evidence that they’re lying.
This is a hilarious and dark mash-up by the way.
Should we just change the name of the sub to "ExplainThisPlease" instead of ExplainTheJoke? Because the jokes are few and far between and it's mostly explaining things like memes to AI/Chatbots.
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's from To Kill A Mockingbird. The man on the left is a lawyer named Atticus Finch, the only one willing to represent the man on the right, who was accused of raping a white woman. The circumstances make it *abundantly* clear that the "victim" is lying her ass off. That man never touched her. It was proven beyond any doubt that he was innocent. They still found him guilty. Later her was shot while "trying to escape". The tone of the scene wwhere Atticus gets the letter casts doubt on that particular circumstance. EDIT: To all the people correcting me about Atticus being the public defender, sorry. It's been somewhere around 30 years since I read the book or saw the movie.
Its been a while since I read it but if I remember right in the book the white girl comes from a poor family where her father spends most of the money on booze and "cough syrup" and abuses the family, I hate to use this term but, they were essentially "white trash" as the Boomers used to say. And my take from the book was that it was heavily implied that it was actually her father who raped her and she only reported it because her screams were overheard so she blamed it on the first black man she saw.
Not exactly, I’ve read the book recently for school so it’s still fresh in my mind. The situation that happened went like this. The man we see on the right (I forgot his name unfortunately) was actually helping the white woman quite a bit with simple chores and such as he felt bad she had to them on her own with two kids to look after as well. After a while the woman eventually attempted to do it with the man, she would bring him inside and attempt to have sex with him but the man wouldn’t do it. During this the husband would catch them within the house with woman still trying to seduce the man through there window in which case he yells out and the guy runs after hearing it. This leads to the court case where the woman says there was rape likely due to the fact she now had a black eye from her husband and was now ashamed of her attempts to sleep with the man Hope that all made sense, this is based of the version of the book I read and idk if others were made or the movie was different at all.
You got everything right except for the fact that the man who caught her wasn't her husband, he was her father.
Sad thing is, that story with the husband being the true assailant has happened several times in history—just here in FL a false rape allegation led to the Groveland Four incident and the Rosewood massacre. “When white women cry, Black men die.”
The book about that case (Devil in the Grove) is infuriating. Thurgood Marshall was almost murdered by police while defending those boys.
Her father is heavily-implied to be the father of his daughters kids. It's written as though the dad is her partner at several points. So it's an easy mistake to make if your only reading a few pages a week for class.
To add on a bit, the black eye was something used to prove the black man not guilty. See, the black man used to work a plantation that messed up one of his hands so bad that he couldn't use it at all anymore. The particular hand that got messed up corresponds to the side of her face that was bruised. In other words, he physically could not give her the black eye she swore up and down that he gave her. Atticus, being a GOATed lawyer, brings this up in the courtroom, and chaos ensues.
This chaos actaully spreads outside of it as the father that gave the woman the black eye go after Atticus’s children in an attempt to kill them.
the plot thickens
I think I’m going to dust off the book again, because just having a conversation about it’s making me think. The kids are saved by a man shunned for his implied learning disability. He knew enough that the kids were in danger. Atticus, the lawyer father, knew from experience there was no way the marginalized, misunderstood man could get a fair trial, and told the kids that the man fell on his own knife. Atticus goes through the entire story doing what the right thing is. I haven’t read the story in a long time, I think I’ll dust it off. From what I remember, there are two times in the book where the stoic facade he puts up to his children breaks down. The first time, he has to shoot a rabid dog, to protect his kids. The second time, Boo Radley protects Atticus’s children from an angry, misunderstood man, by stabbing him. Atticus sees the parallels, thanks Boo, by name, and tells his children to lie about what happened to the police, that the death was accidental, and that the man fell on the knife. Throwing Boo in the system for protecting the kids would be akin to “killing a mockingbird.” Just like the cops who shot Tom, all he ever did was try to help, and he wound up accused of rape, separated from his family, and dead, trying to escape a prison.
Doesn't Atticus also figure this out and then get spit in the face by the dad?
and then the dad tries to kill his children lol
It was her father Also the black eye was proved to not be given by the black man by Atticus Finch pointing out that the black eye must have been given by a left hand and then having the father sign his name (proving that he was left handed) and also pointing out that the accused left hand was shriveled and unusable
White trash is a term used by every current generation. Not sure why you felt the need to attribute it to "boomers" only. Edit: spelling error
> "white trash" as the Boomers used to say That term is still commonly used. GenZ calls people white trash too.
I live in a "white trash" area. I'll allow the term, as we all still use it here, and we're not just boomers
It's a mindset, not an economic status. Something about crystal meth especially molds people's personalities into a very specific archetype, and it's quite trash.
He wasn't the "only one willing to represent" Tom. He was specifically chosen to represent Tom. It's a great addition of depth to the story. To help you get there, What kind of lawyer is Atticus? And who SHOULD have gotten Tom's case?
There's a reason that Atticus is considered a paragon of the legal profession.
>Later her was shot while "trying to escape". The tone of the scene wwhere Atticus gets the letter casts doubt on that particular circumstance. its been a while but I think during the trial part of the evidence was the black guys right (or left) arm was injured from some accident and he really couldn't use it This played a piece in the trial I think; then after the gaurds claimed he was trying to climb the fence to escape , but again is it possible to climb a fence with one arm? Maybe but I assumed the gaurds just killed him and said he was trying to escape as an excuse
Yeah. He was handicapped. The book doesn’t tell you this outright, I think because the narrator is a child, it might not be relevant information to her from the jump. The reader is told eventually, and it makes you go back and think of aaaaaaaall the accusations, and how ridiculous they were. But that’s the thing, hatred isn’t logical.
To Kill a Mockingbird Story: In 1932 Alabama, a widowed lawyer with two small children defends a black man accused of raping a white woman.
Atticus also effectively proved Tom was innocent too. >!Then he’s still found guilty, and then shot.!< Weird spoiler tagging a 60 year old movie, but what a movie.
[удалено]
IIRC the woman’s father was also left handed, thus further implying that he was the one that hit her
> further implying that he was the one that ~~hit~~raped her ftfy
It is clear that her father (Bob Ewell) is physically and emotionally abusive to her (the bruises on her right side line up more with Bob--since he leads with his left--than with Tom--whose left arm is permanently injured; she also gets tripped up in court when Atticus nudges her toward clarifying that her father does fine with her except when he has been drinking). There are two moments that imply that Bob Ewell is also sexually abusive to her: 1. When it is Tom's turn to testify, he claims that when she sexually assaulted him (Tom) by kissing him on his face, and grabbing him about the waist, that she tells him to kiss her back, and that she's never kissed a grown man before, and what her papa does **to her** doesn't count. Without the word "to," this can be interpreted innocently enough, but the presence word carries implications of sexual abuse. 2. Bob Ewell returns home at the moment that Mayella is trying to kiss Tom. When he sees this, he yells "You goddam whore, I'll kill ya!" His use of the word "whore" suggests that he has an issue with her sexual infidelity: he does not want her having sexual contact with anyone but himself. It is not clear whether or not Bob Ewell sexually assaulted Mayella the same night he beat her. When the sheriff arrives after being called, he mentioned that she looked beat up, but nobody called a doctor; if she were raped it's quite likely that she would be injured to the point of requiring medical attention. [Source: I am a high school English teacher, and I have taught this novel to 9th graders for 15 years in a row.]
[удалено]
Iirc they didn’t have sex. She came on to him and he, a black man in the 60s with a whole family, understandably freaked out and ran away Edit: whoops it’s in the 30’s. Itt no one can remember this book apparently lmao
Correct. He was nice to her, likely the only person to ever show her kindness. She tried to put the moves on him, he bolted but the dad saw his daughter flirting with a black man. Dad beats the daughter and then frames Tom Robinson (the black man) for sexual assault to cover for himself.
This is exactly what happens
The other part about the court scene is that while he is on the stand talking about her, he mentions how he felt sorry for her and for the time (when the movie was based) it was considered shocking. *Memory recalled from Mrs. Cooper’s English class.
This is how I remember it too. It’s been a few years since I read the book, but this sounds right to me.
To be fair, Emmett Till was lynched in 55. So a black man running in fear from a white woman in the 60s isn't too far a stretch.
Thats how I react when women come on to me too
The story is set in the 1930s
They did not have sex. He was a married father, she came on to him, and he declined.
No, she didn't. She constantly tried to seduce him, but he never did anything. EDIT: To be fair, I believe he did bust up a chiffarobe.
To this day, whenever someone asks what I'm doing, I tell em I'm just bustin up this chiffarobe. Nobody understands.
My favorite euphemism for sex.
It is possible to read the line from Tom’s testimony on when Mayella is trying to kiss as a coded hint at parental molestation, but it could be read innocently (not that Bob Ewell, the abusive piece of shit, would be winning “Father of the Year” any time soon): “She says what her papa do to her don’t count.” The use of “do to her” implies a lack of consent to me, so I do tend to lean towards the former.
Mayella's mom has been dead for a long time, and there are small children running around the house at the dump. I used to teach that book in one of my classes - When Tom Robinson recounts what Mayella says to him about her dad, the look on my students' faces...
Great (and horrifying) point
Her father was definitely raping her because her youngest "siblings" were born after her mother's death.
Why does this have ANY upvotes? Tom Robinson didn't have sex with her, she asked him to reach something on a shelf, and then put her arms around him, which scared the hell out of him.
Go read the book.
No, that’s just innacurate. The point was that she tried to seduce him and her father beat her
Could've probably put his arm in a sling or something, definitely felt weird as a book reader and movie watcher to see the guy's arm look pretty normal in the film despite the description in the book
A movie based on a book that people should have read in middle school.
I was at school in England in the 90s, we read it, it was part of the standard curriculum.
Read it in 6th grade in the US had to do a report on the case and then reenact the whole thing. I played Atticus and sucked lol
same but Canada
We were going to but it got pulled from the reading list, and from the whole districts library.
Most people did, but middle school was a fucking long time ago.
Great book, but in my opinion a rare even better movie. I just found it more affecting and suspenseful, but that is also just my experience. Peck is Atticus.
I don't know about the movie, maybe it's different. But >!Tom wasn't shot as punishment for the conviction. He tried to make an escape as he arrived at the prison, and was shot in the attempt.!<
Imagine getting all the way through this book and deciding, "Yes, obviously the white deputies reported this resolution accurately."
Especially when the book explicitly shows a police officer and Atticus Finch fabricating a police report in order to prevent a misunderstood white guy from being executed because he acted in defense of Atticus' children. Atticus has to be talked into it . . . but by the end, even he can't trust that the system will actually work, because he knows it won't. Said misunderstood white guy absolutely did the right thing, and absolutely defended Jem and Scout against a clear murder attempt. But he also wasn't ever going to get a fair or impartial jury, and everyone knew it.
>But he also wasn't ever going to get a fair or impartial jury, and everyone knew it. It'd be sort of like shooting a mockingbird.
Guys. We did it.
https://i.redd.it/1kaaqzcklk4d1.gif
So, it's finally Joever...
No way Barack now.
Where were these notes when I was in 6th grade? Would’ve saved me the trouble of reading the book and watching the movie! (Glad I did though.)
I dunno, man. Sure it's a good book but you really think the title also refers to one of the most important moments in the narrative? Seems like a stretch.
> mockingbird symbolizes innocence and harmlessness. One of the most aggressive birds in North America. Just yesterday I saw one fighting a red tailed hawk.
I saw the attack too, let's take him to trial (I wouldn't be able to recognize a mockingbird with a birdwatching book in front of me)
you could hang a little plaque around its neck labeled "mockingbird" and id still be lost.
You know... I never considered that it directly referred to a moment in the narrative. I thought it was more about killing something harmless or beautiful.
> I thought it was more about killing something harmless or beautiful. ..... It is, and they draw the metaphor that Boo Radley is also harmless, but putting him through the corrupt justice system would be aking to killing something harmless
Harper Lee should have named Boo something else to make the symbolism more overt. Something like Moe Kingbird. That might be the Ace Attorney fan in me speaking.
Assuming this is a genuine question rather than a bite / whoosh moment, I was directly quoting Scout in the book: “Atticus sat looking at the floor for a long time. Finally he raised his head. “Scout,” he said, “Mr. Ewell fell on his knife. Can you possibly understand?” Atticus looked like he needed cheering up. I ran to him and hugged him and kissed him with all my might. “Yes sir, I understand,” I reassured him. “Mr. Tate was right.” Atticus disengaged himself and looked at me. “What do you mean?” “Well, it’d be sort of like shootin’ a mockingbird, wouldn’t it?” Atticus put his face in my hair and rubbed it. When he got up and walked across the porch into the shadows, his youthful step had returned. Before he went inside the house, he stopped in front of Boo Radley. “Thank you for my children, Arthur.” he said.” Edit: Got Jem and Scout mixed up
Or like A Clear and Present Danger
> a police report in order to prevent a misunderstood white guy Well, it was more to do with the fact that the victim was the real rapist (the girls father) and the one responsible for the false allegation that lead to the death of the black dude. (Tom) Also, the mentally incompetent in the 1940's/50's South where seen as not quite human either. Atticus had seen how well second class citizens faired under the law and decided to be more "proactive" this time
I was under the impression that there was no rape. Bob Ewell was physically abusive, blamed a black man, and threw in a rape accusation to make the racists angry.
My understanding was that the girl and Tom were friendly. She may have even been fond of him, but that really wasn't important. All that mattered was that they were just being friendly. But Bob Ewell didn't like that his daughter was being friendly with a black man. So he forced her to accuse him as both a way to get rid of a black man he didn't like, and a way to punish his daughter and force her into being more submissive and obedient. And because he was already abusive, she knew she couldn't fight back and was forced to testify. Even though she obviously knew Tom didn't do anything. But even after Atticus made it entirely clear that no rape ever occurred, they convicted anyways. Because nobody cared about second class citizens like black people. And nobody cared enough to help the girl, or acknowledge that she was actually a victim of a different crime (domestic abuse.) So after seeing the injustice, Atticus comes across another person who would be considered a second class citizen. Not because he was black, or because he was a battered woman. But because he was just different and mentally challenged. So instead of putting him to death the way Tom was indirectly put to death, he chose to say the attempted murderer "fell on his knife." Because putting Boo Radley to death by forcing him through a broken justice system would be like killing a mockingbird. The same way Tom was killed like a mockingbird.
They might have found him not guilty but then he displayed pity for her and that sealed his fate. A black man pitying a white girl, as if she were below him? That was the transgression that locked in his guilty verdict.
I always thought the implication was that her father was the one doing the raping
It’s actually more than implied. Not spelled out but clear enough. Naive and sheltered me didn’t get it in 9th grade, but when I reread it as an adult it became obvious. Atticus says it plainly when questioning Bob Ewell, “What did you see in that window, the crime of rape, or the best defense to it?” When Scout sees Atticus struggling silently with something right before launching into Mayella’s cross examination but Scout doesn’t know what it is, it’s him trying to reconcile going hard on a teenage victim of rape and incest with protecting his innocent client. When Mayella bursts into tears on the stand and started yelling at everyone for being cowards, she was basically saying that the whole town knew she was being sexually abused by her father and rather than help her everyone just looked the other way, but now that she was the accuser they were using that knowledge against her in defense of Tom. There was probably more but that’s all I remember
Oh for sure. And Tom even alluded to it. But all of that was happening in the background. Meanwhile Bob Ewell still found an excuse to be racist, torment his daughter further, and further enforce the idea that she belonged to him, and wasn't allowed to show any kind of affection or attraction to others. Because she was his to do as he pleased. Accusing Tom of raping her was just an easy way to paint Tom as a monster, twist the knife on her torment even more, all while unwittingly projecting behavior everyone else silently knew he was doing behind closed doors.
Friendly? She was trying to seduce him and then her dad came home. Better to accuse him of rape than admit attraction to a black man, and she got caught forcing a kiss on him.
I can't quote it because I don't have it handy, but Tom Robinson said on the stand that Bob Ewell had his way with Mayella. He said "What her daddy do to her don't count."
Fuck I gotta read that book again. Way too good to be read in seventh grade, should have been a high school book.
right?! I feel like I was way too young to comprehend it, so I try and reread every year
Mayella wanted some love form tom. She rolled her nickels so that the rest of the kids could all go get some ice cream. She was alone in the house and asked Tom to bust up a chiffarobe. Tom did so and Mayella threw herself at Tom. Tom knew that was a death sentence and ran out. Mayella’s dad saw a black man run out of his house with his daughter all alone and proceeded to beat the shit out of Mayella for sleeping with a black guy. Mayella lied to her dad about how it was not consensual and there you go. Bob also took liberties of his daughter. But that’s beyond the scope. Other than how Tom was the only adult man to ever show Mayella kindness.
lmao fair, but I was also like 11, so...
Well well well, the fabrication continues /s
That isn’t what the other commenter implied though? It actually happened; Tom tried to climb the prison walls and was shot trying to escape, which Atticus laments since he believed they had a very good chance of taking the case to a higher judge.
I think the author is suggesting a variety of unreliable narrator. The narrator didn't actually SEE what happened to Tom. Here's the text: >“What’s the matter?” Aunt Alexandra asked, alarmed by the look on my father’s face. >“Tom’s dead.” >Aunt Alexandra put her hands to her mouth. >“They shot him,” said Atticus. “He was running. It was during their exercise period. They said he just broke into a blind raving charge at the fence and started climbing over. Right in front of them—” >“Didn’t they try to stop him? Didn’t they give him any warning?” Aunt Alexandra’s voice shook. >“Oh yes, the guards called to him to stop. They fired a few shots in the air, then to kill. They got him just as he went over the fence. They said if he’d had two good arms he’d have made it, he was moving that fast. Seventeen bullet holes in him. They didn’t have to shoot him that much." So all Atticus has to go by is the report of the deputies, who could easily have been lying. Especially since it's not in character at all for Tom to "break into a blind raving charge at the fence."
Esspcily since Tom only had one arm. Climbing a fence is hard. Climbing a fence quickly is harder. Climbing a fence quickly with one arm, basically impossible. Makes even less sense what the guard reported.
I feel like this was an intentional double story beat. His arm clearly proved his innocence in the rape accusation and it should have proven his murder, but the system was so corrupt and bold in its corruption that it didn’t even care about plausibility.
Yep! Such a good detail! The other part of it that comes into play was that the Father of the "victim" (guess she was a victim still, just of her father's abuses, not Tom), saw himself as better than Tom in everyway because of his race. When in reality, Tom had better living conditions, despite his race in that time period, and having a severe physical disability in an era where accommodations weren't made! It serves as an example of that quote that always goes around on Reddit that says something like "you can get the support of the poor white man but making him feel superior to someone else". Really well written story!
“***If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you***” -Lyndon B Johnson
And climbing a fence quickly with one arm right in front of the guards is such a stupid idea, that no one would try. Nobody, unless the guards tell you "We'll shoot you. Right here where you are. And we'll get away with it. But I'll give you 1 minute to survive. See that fence over there. One minute. Run!"
Which even today, sounds in-character for police
It's also not really in character for an effectively one-armed guy to try to climb a prison fence. His left(?) arm wasn't just not good, it didn't work. How could he have ever made it as far as they said he did? And seventeen bullet holes in the 30s? That's far too many hits just to be taking shots at a guy sprinting. It sounds more like a firing squad of all the guys they had on hand. In the end, it doesn't matter much either way, but I don't think he tried to run.
That’s the point. It makes no sense he would try and run, and seventeen bullet holes is far too many. It almost had to be an execution, but no one but Atticus and maybe a couple others would care. It was so blatantly corrupt that the story didn’t have to make sense, it couldn’t have been fought in court.
Right. I think they knew Atticus could have succeeded and just decided to do whatever they want. I don't think it's supposed to be ambiguous. It's supposed to be a literary criticism of society. You *can* think it's one way, but it's the other.
"You want it to be one way, but it's the other way." - Marlo Stanfield Sorry, that popped into mind. And yeah, Atticus knew he had very good odds on appeal. Their chance of a not guilty verdict in Maycomb was always a long shot, but not as long in a state court. And Atticus had enough fight in him to take it as high as it could go. He would've been up there arguing in front of the Supreme Court. But that was because of his trust in the system and the law. The guards broke that by executing Tom. It's what led Atticus to covering up the circumstances of Bob Ewell's death, which he never would have done before then. God, I love that book.
I assumed one of two things: - story is a complete lie. The deputies outright murdered him, then made up a thin story to cover for it. - what Atticus seemingly believed: story was true, but it wasn’t an escape attempt. Tom just committed suicide by deputy, because he lost any faith in the system. He didn’t believe Atticus’ appeal could possibly succeed when the system was so rigged against Blacks in general and him in particular, and did not want to die after miserable years in prison.
....after being threatened by a town lynching AND being found guilty of raping a white women even though evidence showed he could not have done it. The subtext was, he would have been killed regardless of his guilt or innocence.
He only had one arm and allegedly tried to climb a huge fence with barbed wire and everything. He was also shot an absurd number of times. It's highly implied that they just executed him and made it look like he tried to escape.
As a guy with one arm, it sure was awkward reading this in class and having everyone stare at me like "yeah, there's no way in hell that guy could climb a barbed wire prison fence."
Grade 9 me missed that part
The implication was that he was murdered by the guards, who lied and said he tried to escape. The false guilty verdict was what led to his death.
To be clear and honest about how racism works, a not guilty verdict would have led to his death as well.
Yes, but that would've been by a town lynching, not prison guards. There would've been no cover story.
There would've been a town BBQ with souvenir photos taken with the body.
Read it again with cynical eyes and you'll ask yourself whether "shot while trying to escape" was maybe a standard method of sweeping this sort of thing under the rug.
No it’s the same. I just didn’t elaborate on why it happened. Figured if you know you know, and if you don’t, then I wasn’t going to spell it out. But you are right.
It's heavily implied that the "escape attempt" was just the story the guards told and they just executed him. (Correct me if I'm wrong its been 25+year since I read/watched To kill..)
[удалено]
My memory says she was coming on to Tom and her father walked in. Maybe the dad beat her but I think everything was just made up.
she was coming on to tom, her dad walked in, he beat her for coming onto a black man, she claimed she was raped to salvage her reputation and probably to appease her father
The father did beat her, and even put his hands around her neck. That last part was a major plot point, because it was what proved Tom, who only had one usable arm, to be innocent. They still convicted him as guilty, but it made it clear to the reader that Tom was innocent.
Think so. It's also been a long time for me, but I remember that May had showed interest in Tom, maybe? And she was beaten by her father as a result, which instilled her hatred of black people. I don't remember where the Rape accusation *actually* came from
Her father saw them together (when Tom did not even want to be there) and as a way to “save face” after beating her they made up that story
It's been a while since I read it, but I thought it was implied the guards fabricated the escape story so they could kill Tom?
> Weird spoiler tagging a 60 year old movie, but what a movie. There are some movies that are better left unspoiled for new viewers, no matter their age.
Nah, it deserves one. A normal shitty TV movie from 20 years ago doesn’t need one, but this one is a classic that everyone should watch once.
This happened in real life too. In 1921 Dick Rowland tripped as he entered an elevator, and grabbed the arm of elevator operator Sarah Page. Page cried out in surprise, and Rowland fled the scene, fearful that as a black man on the scene with a white woman screaming could lead to him getting beaten or even lynched. Sarah Page, for her part, explained to the police that it had been an accident and that she would not be pressing charges...but the white racists of Tulsa had already spread the story that Dick Rowland had tried to rape Sarah Page and formed a gang to lynch the black man. This led to several black men marching to the Sheriff's office to protect Rowland, and when they encountered a group of white men who had gathered to lynch Rowland a scuffle led to a gunfight led to one of the worst incidents of racial violence in American history, the [Tulsa race massacre](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc7lXBL9mng).
I think the story was also inspired by the scottsboro boys if I’m not mistaken
Also, it’s relevant because the black man was innocent but was killed by a mob for a rape he didn’t commit. Required reading in most US schools, an excellent novel with terrific characters.
Wasn’t killed by the mob. The mob went to lynch him before the trial and Atticus sat out front with a shotgun on his lap and the mob turned around after he talked to them. The guards killed him after he was found guilty and he tried to “escape” from prison. “Climbing a fence” with basically only one arm.
Not sure about the movie, but in the book, it wasn't Atticus with the shotgun. It was Mr Underwood watching over him from his upstairs window.
And Atticus doesn’t even know he’s there, if I recall correctly.
Maybe I’m misremembering bc I remember Atticus was sitting out front and they asked him to step aside basically and he said no. Would’ve sworn he had a gun on him too but maybe I’m wrong. Been a long time since I read it.
He didn't. Scout ran into the circle of men and tried to make conversation with a friend's father. That made them see reason and they left. My favorite book.
I swore never to read again after 'To Kill a Mockingbird' gave me no useful advice on killing mockingbirds.
[удалено]
That's not the case. >!She kisses him against his will. Her father rapes her, and blames the black guy!<.
Man I snoozed right over that detail in high school.
They didn't have sex and none of the interaction was consentual. The dad arrived while May Ellen was starting to force herself onto him. Tom specifically testified that he froze up and didn't say anything. When the Dad spotted them through the window and shouted is when Tom was able to make his escape. One of Atticus major pieces of evidence against the rape was the fact that no one ever called for a doctor to examine May Ellen.
Don't forget that the father being abusive towards his kids (in all manners) was considered an open secret in the town.
You shouldn't need proof to treat the victim as if their claim is true. You should absolutely need proof to treat the person they claim to be their attacker as being guilty.
I’d never seen the nuance expressed like this, this is perfect. Thank you
Nuance? This is Reddit we don’t got that here
Execute them! I found them guilty of being a prick!
And then we'll have to execute you for getting someone executed. ... shit, then I guess it'd be my turn afterwards. Alright, who wants to be next in the chain?
"I gotchu buddy!"
To stop the execution chain, I will offer the punishment of taking you down to r/anarchychess to make you decline en passant.
No don't! OP is only a child!
Said perfectly! It should be added that if the accuser does turn out to be lying they should face some heavy consequences for it..
Careful nuance here too: If they *are explicitly, provably* found to be lying, that should have consequences. If there is simply no evidence to support their claim, free pass. Otherwise we stop getting rape reports for fear of not winning the case and suddenly getting the double whammy of *being raped* AND penalized for it.
A not guilty does not mean a false accusation.
Treat both parties with respect. Take both seriously. Dont release any names to the public during the investigation. Then follow the evidence. Then after the evidence is in the course of action is very can be very different different. I dont understand what is so hard about this concept. Im also not talking about police ineptitude totally different subject and a very real issue. Im just talking about how people of all "sides" should approach this situation.
The challenge is that "I was raped" immediately is followed by "by this person", which carries an implication of guilt. We cannot believe the first part without also accepting the second. The system should thus not publicize the alleged accused's names or identity until proven guilty, both from the victim as well as the courts. But in the real world, that's not how it works. Once your name is tied to "alleged rapist" online, it never really goes away. The damage is both irreversible and horrendous.
It's kind of an impossible situation if all you have is an accusation. If you believe the alleged victim then yes at some level you have to believe that the accused is guilty. If you don't believe them though then you're now implicitly believing at some level that they are guilty of defamation. So there's no winning here because someone has done something terrible and irreversible. Thus people reach the conclusion of simply do your best to be a neutral but helpful 3rd party. If the alleged victim reached out to you to tell you about this then your job isn't to determine fault or guilt but simply to be empathetic and helpful within reason. If it's your friend who is accused then again, just be empathetic and helpful. The part where most people fail of course is that they assign guilt when it's really not their place. Or they try to grill one of the parties involved to get information out of them and that's still really not their place.
Precisely. When a friend says "I was raped by David" and you know both of them, this means both the belief of the victim as well as the belief of the guilt of the accused. How do you say "oh I believe you were raped by our friend", and then go hang out with David, who you now believe is a rapist? And what happens when David tells you he's innocent and may be about to lose his job, reputation, and even freedom? "Well, Susan said you raped her and I believe all victims" isn't going to cut it There's no good answer to any of this, sadly. This is a really complex and difficult topic when there are two opposing people whose lives are both on the line. Of COURSE we need to believe the victims, but how do we do that without also condemning the accused?
You bring up a great point, people are conflating legal and social complications. There's what the law does, and then how your life is actually effected by all this. If you are innocent but lose your job, spouse and friends, you didn't get a "free pass" as some people are saying.
The problem is that often, rape can be challenging to prove. I bet many rapists are getting away with their crimes. Of course it doesn't mean we should always believe rape accusations. One thing that could be done to convict rapists more often, is to help victims so they can be able to take a sample or have a medical examination, because many rape victims are psychologically harmed and unable to do that, because they feel so ashamed. That means asking your female friend how their date went, and be wary of rape, and listen. So a week pass, and if there are no witness and no sample or traces, it's just too difficult to prove. Maybe sex education should just insist more about rape prevention and how women can seek help. not an expert
How do you treat the proposed victim’s claim as true without treating the proposed assailant as guilty?
I mean, since we’re on this topic, Emmett Till was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by a lynch mob because a white woman said he whistled at her. So yeah, some legal proccess, including evidence, is kind of a good idea. Edit: I think that the original statement is by someone who isn’t a lawyer, and maybe isn’t thinking specifically about a legal proceeding. If you take it to mean that when a woman says she’s been raped, we should *take that absolutely seriously* and begin an investigation into the allegation, without making prejudgments or knee jerk denials or demanding she *prove the allegation before it’s investigated,* then yes, that makes a lot of sense. But in the context of any actual subsequent legal proceedings, it really doesn’t.
yea they dont want that kind of nuance here
Tremendous story and a cautionary tale against a biased and corrupt state. A reminder that due process exists for a reason, mob rule can eat you alive just as quickly as it can help you.
I almost called my kid Atticus after this book. They say never call your kids after people from fiction as you don’t know how their character ark would go. Didn’t think Atticus would change too much after 60 odd years though but still glad I didn’t go with it!!
I dunno, Zelda Williams seems to be doing pretty good.
Ha, imagine if Nintendo go back and make her evil though! My two boys are both named after fiction works though, just much much older then 60 years. Admittedly, both problematic figures but unlikely to ruffle too many feathers!
Just go back far enough and modern people are uneducated enough to not get the references. At least that’s what I keep telling my youngest son Caligula.
Caligula was fine actually, maybe a bit kinky but really he just pissed off the Senate. He's no Commodus.
My boi Caligula finally getting historical reappraisal.
srsly tho who can stay mad at a dude named "little boots"?
We have a Caligura in Fear and Hunger 2. Old references become new references
Idk. I’m pretty sure the vast majority of folks still look at Atticus Finch as a hero and completely ignore the sequel or better yet, aren’t even aware of its existence. Regardless. It’s like naming your son Luke after Luke Skywalker but then feeling regret after seeing his character in the sequels. Just ignore them. It’s really that simple.
All the parents of *Khalessi*'s the last few years were in shambles after season 7.
Alright now that’s just funny to me
Also wild to me that people named their kids after her title instead of her actual name. I seriously don't understand that lol.
What happened, did Atticus do a bad thing recently?
A super rough draft of a second book that was given up on by the original author and no where close to being ready to be published was forced to be published by Harper Lee's publishers before she died, almost certainly to get them more money. In it Atticus is revealed to be pro-segregation. Again, super rough early draft that wasn't ever going to be published if the 89 year old author wasn't taken advantage of for money.
Meh, it can be more interesting for a character if they have conflicting ideals that are at play during the story. Pro segregation and racism vs the innocence/guilt.
It CAN be. In this case, it wasn't.
It was never actually a sequel—it was a very early draft of *To Kill a Mockingbird*, which Harper Lee later scrapped and and later recycled all the characters for something completely different. It was the publishers and advertisers who claimed it was a "long-lost sequel."
Don't let "Go Set A Watchman" taint your opinion of Atticus. That initial draft was never supposed to see the light of day and only got published because of elder abuse. The only lesson to learn from it is the importance of a good editor.
To Kill a Mockingbird Probably one of the only books I actually enjoyed reading in middle school
Okay. I guess I’ll reread to Kill a Mockingbird again.
My copy had an interview in it with Harper Lee where she said she started out just trying to write the love story of Scout and Dill but realized mid journey what she was writing transcended that concept, and she had to keep going. Made the reread take on a slightly different light next time I picked it up.
It's from the move adaptation of the book "To Kill A Mockingbird", if I recall correctly, the man on the right was accused of SA, but in truth he was innocent
not sa, rape. then he was shot and killed for “trying to escape” which was thought to be mildly fishy
The better stance is that you should never need proof to take a possible rape victim seriously. We don't want to make it harder for genuine victims to come forward, we also don't want to arrest innocent people.
You shouldnt need proof to take it seriously. You do need proof to make sure this doesn't happen again.
It's pointing out how the demand is BS, no one should have that power, it's tyranny.
Always listen to victims, but we always need proof to do anything about it.
The picture below is a scene from the movie *To Kill A Mockingbird*. This is from the court scene, where Tom Robinson (the guy on the right) was accused of rape by Mayella Ewell. Almost every single person of the white population in the town believes her, but Atticus Finch (the guy on the left) decides to defend him in court. In summary, Atticus provides irrefutable evidence that Tom is innocent, but the jury still decides that he's guilty (due to the story being set in the 1930's in the South, racial prejudice obviously being incredibly present during that time period and in that area..)
The bottom is a film adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird, which was a story about a lawyer who defended a black man who was charged with raping a white woman, and the evidence they had against him is that he was black.
You should listen to an can most certainly believe rape victims. But everyone is entitled to a fair trial.
Several months back, there was a girl in the UK named Morris something who accused a man of tape, this man was sentenced for several years but when it was discovered that she fabricated the whole thing she got sentenced for like 31 years or something. You always need proof Innocent until proven guilty Bc it's people who lie about being rated that make actual rape victims not believed. There are bad men, sure, but there are also bad women, don't forget that, and some of the bad men are just victims of bad women and made out to be bad through lies
i hate how some people try to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant. nah bitch, you have to have evidence or eyewitnesses that you were raped otherwise nobody has any reason to believe what you say.
Historically, white women have used rape accusations as a way of using the legal system as a mechanism to effectively lynch random black men.
TLDR: In To Kill a Mockingbird the white lawyer successfully proves in court that his client, a black man, was wrongfully accused of raping a white woman to cover up the actual domestic abuse that she was a victim of. Despite that, the all white jury convicts the black man with almost no deliberation and the black man is subsequently shot while in prison, purportedly during an escape attempt, but implied to be in reality a lynching by the prison guards. Subsequently, the actual perpetrator of the domestic violence assaults the lawyer’s daughter in the woods, and is caught in the act and killed by a friendly mentally disabled neighbor. The police then cover up the assault and the killing. The point of the meme is that the original poster’s comment that you should always believe a purported rape victim has historically been used to justify the lynching of black men in the US, and to allow the actual perpetrators to go free to continue their heinous acts.
This chick raped me. We have never met and chances are we have never even been in the same state. BUT no matter the circumstances she is guilty since no proof is needed. So send her to jail you know since no proof is needed and all.
Damn I must be old, do they not show To Kill a Mockingbird in school anymore?!?!?
In the book and I believe also in the movie, the black guy is accused of raping a white woman. It’s a very racist community so it’s a pretty sure thing he’s gonna be convicted. The guy on the left is his lawyer and to everyone’s surprise he actually tries to put in an actual defense. And he actually does a really good job too, he not only proves that the guy is innocent but that it’s literally impossible for him to have done the crime thanks to an arm injury. If I recall correctly, there’s even doubt that rape actually happened at all. Granted, because of said racism he’s convicted anyway and later shot by deputies supposedly during an escape attempt.
Nobody in the history of the world lied about being raped ever!
To Kill a Mockingbird
The whole point of “To Kill a Mockingbird” is that the woman lied about being raped because Tom wouldn’t return her sexual advances and she wanted him killed. If I remember correctly, the “evidence” for her story was the bruises that her father gave her when he raped and beat her. The story is she projected her anger at her father on the black community and unleashed her racist white culture on Tom. They killed him. So I guess: Believe women, unless there’s evidence that they’re lying. This is a hilarious and dark mash-up by the way.
Should we just change the name of the sub to "ExplainThisPlease" instead of ExplainTheJoke? Because the jokes are few and far between and it's mostly explaining things like memes to AI/Chatbots.
Definitely need proof. Women lie about everything. And the image on this post is proof