[ SECRET POST #2804 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2804 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #401.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - unrelated .gifs ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

the term "Twinkie Defense" is the catch-all term for all the stuff you just described: arguing "diminished capacity" based on ridic stuff compounded with people being willing to accept the BS as fact or whatever reason. you are a useless pedant

[(Anonymous)]

it wasn't a ridiculous defense, though. that's kind of my point. it was a legitimate argument, and the twinkies were one minor piece of evidence for it, and using the term "Twinkie Defense" plays into a narrative of events that's incorrect in significant ways.

[(Anonymous)]

I think a lot of people found it ridiculous though considering in the aftermath of the trial:

"As a result of Dan White's trial, California voters changed the law to reduce the likelihood of acquittals of accused who knew what they were doing but claimed their capacity was impaired."

According to wikipedia at least...

[(Anonymous)]

sorry, what? you don't think "i went, armed up, climbed through a window, and shot people i considered rivals and enemies in politics who i blamed for my failures but it wasn't murder, it was depression" isn't ridiculous? cali revoked diminished capacity after that for a reason

[(Anonymous)]

not ridiculous in the sense that it was the law on the books, and it was correctly applied. he had diminished capacity, the law said to treat diminished capacity this way, that's how it was treated. it might have been a bad or a ridiculous law but that's the fault of the person who wrote the laws.

[(Anonymous)]

oh boy, we got a cultural relativist here.

if it wasn't ridiculous why did cali revoke the law afterward? hint: because it was ridiculous all along

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, but when you look at how the law was applied and the selective interpretations based on who the victim was…well…you can see why some people found it ridiculous I hope.
Anyway, when I used the term, I was using it to describe the context of the time -- that a gay politician was assassinated and that his killer got off too lightly compared to others whose mental state was comparable to White.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

>not ridiculous in the sense that it was the law on the books, and it was correctly applied

but yes, ridiculous in essentials, and that's why it was ridiculed with the term "Twinkie Defense."

Q.E.D.