| Author |
Message |
TYPHOID
Regular
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 96
|
|
 Soon take the life of an innocent man |
 |
Is anyone else bothered by that statement?
Jeff is far from innocent.
His hesitation and grief result in the death of five people.
Amanda, shot in the neck
The woman in the freezer.(gawd i am horrible with names)
Timothy young in the "Rack".
The judge, his death was an accident.
LYNN his wife
JIGSAW
Yes far from innocent!
|
|
| Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:31 pm |
  |
 |
Julehh
Regular
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 56
|
|
| |
|
I agree. I don't think Jeff was innocent at all. Yeah some of you might of been "Well It was John who pushed him to do it !! "
But really, if you met the people that killed your son or made your life a living hell because of it. Don't you think you would want revenge ? So yes, I doubt Jeff was innocent at all.
Thats part of the tape to Agent Perze I didn't get
"Strahm will soon take the life of an innocent man.."
Um...yeahh.. >>;;
|
|
| Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:34 pm |
|
|
the thing
Expert
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Posts: 2338
|
|
|
| Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:16 am |
|
|
TYPHOID
Regular
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 96
|
|
| |
|
But jigsaw does not deal with guilty or not guilty as in the eyes of the law. He deals with your personal self. What is deep inside your soul. Your true make up as a human being.
To a cop, the word innocent instinctively means that an individual was not found guilty of a crime, whether they committed it or not.
Jeff has committed crimes in the eyes of the law and and committed crimes of a vengefull nature.
Therefore when Jigsaw tells Agent strahm that he will soon take the life of an innocent man, I do not feel he is talking about jeff.
What do you think?? Am I reaching????
|
|
| Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:14 am |
|
|
jcwil2005
Regular
Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 80
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
But jigsaw does not deal with guilty or not guilty as in the eyes of the law. He deals with your personal self. What is deep inside your soul. Your true make up as a human being.
To a cop, the word innocent instinctively means that an individual was not found guilty of a crime, whether they committed it or not.
Jeff has committed crimes in the eyes of the law and and committed crimes of a vengefull nature.
Therefore when Jigsaw tells Agent strahm that he will soon take the life of an innocent man, I do not feel he is talking about jeff.
What do you think?? Am I reaching???? |
please explain what crimes jeff has committed in the eyes of the law and you cant use what has happened in the gideon warehouse because the law didnt know about that yet. i believe in the eyes of the law your innoscent until proven guilty so therefor at the time strahm enters the room jeff would still be innoscent in the eyes of the law.
|
|
| Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:27 am |
|
|
TYPHOID
Regular
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 96
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
But jigsaw does not deal with guilty or not guilty as in the eyes of the law. He deals with your personal self. What is deep inside your soul. Your true make up as a human being.
To a cop, the word innocent instinctively means that an individual was not found guilty of a crime, whether they committed it or not.
Jeff has committed crimes in the eyes of the law and and committed crimes of a vengefull nature.
Therefore when Jigsaw tells Agent strahm that he will soon take the life of an innocent man, I do not feel he is talking about jeff.
What do you think?? Am I reaching???? |
please explain what crimes jeff has committed in the eyes of the law and you cant use what has happened in the gideon warehouse because the law didnt know about that yet. i believe in the eyes of the law your innoscent until proven guilty so therefor at the time strahm enters the room jeff would still be innoscent in the eyes of the law. |
I guess what I should have said was innocent of any wrong doings. Whether it be from the laws perspective or from a moral standard.
Whether or not the police know of his crimes does not change fact that he still committed them.
Jigsaw states "INNOCENT MAN".
Jeff has commited acts of vengence, Therefore he is not innocent.
|
|
| Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:54 am |
|
|
jcwil2005
Regular
Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 80
|
|
| |
|
well haw about this maybe rigg was the innoscent man he was talking about and strahm was supposed to follow rigg in the room but ended up following jeff. or maybe it was neither of them and that man will be in saw 5 as part of strahms test. strahm test could be like gordons, kill the other man to survive or kill himself and let him live, either way killing an innoscent man.
|
|
| Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:31 am |
|
|
Shadowman3X88
Regular
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 79
|
|
| |
|
Ok, here's what I think:
Strahm still doesn't know who's the person thats helping John and Amanda. He might find someone who he thinks is the third Jigsaw, but is in fact the "innocent" man, and kill him. This "innocent" person might get introduced in SAW V.
Besides, the tape didn't mention anything about the innocent man being Jeff, and Jigsaw couldn't have known that Strahm would kill Jeff.
If Jeff would have passed his test then maybe he wouldn't be locked in the room waiting for Strahm to kill him. The tape wouldn't make sense if that were the case, assuming Jeff was indeed the one being mentioned.
|
|
| Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:45 am |
|
|
dherna7704
Expert
Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 1609
|
|
| |
|
ummmmmm JEFF DID TRY TO SAVE THE INVOVLED IN HIS SONS DEATH
THE JUDGE DIED BY ACCIDENT F REMMEBRE JEFF WAS WIT THE SHOTGUN AND PULLIN ON TTHE KEY AND STRING THEN BAMMO
DANIKA HE WAS TO LATE TO HELP HER TOOK TO LONG
as WELL WITH TIMONTY HE TOOK TO LONG BUT HE TRIED
|
|
| Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:11 pm |
|
|
TYPHOID
Regular
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 96
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ummmmmm JEFF DID TRY TO SAVE THE INVOVLED IN HIS SONS DEATH
THE JUDGE DIED BY ACCIDENT F REMMEBRE JEFF WAS WIT THE SHOTGUN AND PULLIN ON TTHE KEY AND STRING THEN BAMMO
DANIKA HE WAS TO LATE TO HELP HER TOOK TO LONG
as WELL WITH TIMONTY HE TOOK TO LONG BUT HE TRIED |
dherna7704
Your own words only further prove my point.
By Jeffs own actions, did these people die.
|
|
| Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:11 am |
|
|
SAW IN CHINA
Guest
|
| |
|
I still think it mentioned to Perez.
|
|
| Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:34 am |
|
|
I am Hell
Member
Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
ummmmmm JEFF DID TRY TO SAVE THE INVOVLED IN HIS SONS DEATH
THE JUDGE DIED BY ACCIDENT F REMMEBRE JEFF WAS WIT THE SHOTGUN AND PULLIN ON TTHE KEY AND STRING THEN BAMMO
DANIKA HE WAS TO LATE TO HELP HER TOOK TO LONG
as WELL WITH TIMONTY HE TOOK TO LONG BUT HE TRIED |
dherna7704
Your own words only further prove my point.
By Jeffs own actions, did these people die. |
Really? So Jeff put them in their traps?
|
|
| Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:54 am |
|
|
PuppetLove
Member
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 19
|
|
| |
|
i dont feel that jeff should even be questioned on his innocence.. its obvious that he is and he did nothing wrong but linger on the death of his son...but wouldnt you? wouldnt anyone? if i was told that i had to save those who damaged my child id DIE before helping those jerks! so HALEJUIA TO JEFF 
|
|
| Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:22 pm |
|
|
TYPHOID
Regular
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 96
|
|
| |
|
|
|
i dont feel that jeff should even be questioned on his innocence.. its obvious that he is and he did nothing wrong but linger on the death of his son...but wouldnt you? wouldnt anyone? if i was told that i had to save those who damaged my child id DIE before helping those jerks! so HALEJUIA TO JEFF |
I have been blessed with 4 beautiful children so do not question where my loyalty resides.
I am NOT questioning Jeff's decisions to allow them to suffer. If it were me I most asurredlly would want these people to pay for their actions. No question about it.
Morrally Jeff had every right to make them suffer, but it does not change his INNOCENCE.
WE must all be responsible for our own actions.
Think of it this way, Jeff did NOT have to go through any of the doors.
It was his grief and desire for revenge that forced him through each door.
Therefore Jeff did not attain any level of innocence.
|
|
| Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:36 pm |
|
|
TYPHOID
Regular
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 96
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ummmmmm JEFF DID TRY TO SAVE THE INVOVLED IN HIS SONS DEATH
THE JUDGE DIED BY ACCIDENT F REMMEBRE JEFF WAS WIT THE SHOTGUN AND PULLIN ON TTHE KEY AND STRING THEN BAMMO
DANIKA HE WAS TO LATE TO HELP HER TOOK TO LONG
as WELL WITH TIMONTY HE TOOK TO LONG BUT HE TRIED |
dherna7704
Your own words only further prove my point.
By Jeffs own actions, did these people die. |
Really? So Jeff put them in their traps? |
you have missed the point entirely.
|
|
| Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:02 pm |
|
|
|
