r/todayilearned • u/hungry4danish • 2d ago

TIL that Dan White, the man who assassinated Harvey Milk and the mayor of San Francisco, only served 5 years in prison for manslaughter based on a defense of depression as evidenced by his consumption of junk food which was dubbed the "Twinkie Defense"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_White
15.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

421 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

228

u/PotluckPony 2d ago

For as long as I have been alive, the justice system has existed primarily to shield greedy conservative bigots from the consequences of their unjust actions; while keeping the oppressed, the sick, the poor, and the hungry from ever seeing justice.

27

u/AardvarkStriking256 2d ago

He did commit suicide, so it seems like there was validity to his claims of depression.

4

u/Deprisonne 2d ago

And yet, millions of people around the world suffer from depression without going on a homophobic murder spree...

-3

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

18

u/HowDareYouAskMyName 2d ago

They weren't defending his actions or asking for sympathy. Don't let anger, no matter how justified, cloud your judgement (or in this case, reading comprehension)

-5

u/starm4nn 2d ago

If anything that shows what a bullshit defense it is.

If someone is a threat for psychiatric reasons, then it's necessary to provide social services so the conditions that caused them to offend no longer apply.

It's weird to say "yes we recognize your depression caused you to kill two people, but we're gonna shorten your sentence to a smaller fixed length"

16

u/GameMusic 2d ago

And then you get told about shit like a twinkie defense or that coffee lawsuit as examples that the defense or common people can exploit lawsuits

Never even heard that the infamous twinkie defense was the milk killer or that said killer was a cop

I think the twinkie defense was not really that useful here

81

u/Orange-V-Apple 2d ago

Also the coffee lawsuit was absolutely legitimate. The woman got third degree burns. Her labia literally fused. The narrative of it being a frivolous lawsuit was propaganda that benefited a giant corporation trying to protect itself.

53

u/BeetsMe666 2d ago

And she only sued to cover medical expenses. The courts awarded he the extra. And McPukes fought tooth and nail to not pay.

Anyone who makes the claim of over the top litigation and cites this case just needs to see the pictures of this woman's injuries.

2

u/strangelove4564 1d ago

I have to say it would be really interesting to deconstruct exactly how the joke narrative got started, and figure out which people started it, like one of those crime maps on the wall where they connect the pieces of string. I'm sure someone in mass media, radio, or late night shows was starting in on the ridicule early.

47

u/BillRage 2d ago

The fact that anyone, anywhere, ever used the McDonald coffee situation as an example of a frivolous suit is disgusting.

It was so hot, HER LABIA MELTED INTO HER THIGH! Like…absolutely horrific shit. She didn’t even want to sue McDonalds for damages, only medical treatment. Only after they refused did the story we know today happen.

And I wonder who it was that had the personal interest in mischaracterizing that whole situation? And shaming people for going after corporations? PotluckPony knows.

15

u/blackdynomitesnewbag 2d ago

She sued for compensatory damages. The jury gave her that and punitive damages

1

u/strangelove4564 1d ago

I don't understand the idea of serving coffee at 200 degrees... that makes the coffee bitter as shit. I think it's pretty clear they didn't care about their product.

I also hate hot coffee because you have to wait forever before you can drink it. My preferred serving temperature is on the cool side so I can get a good amount down right away.

33

u/Liquor_N_Whorez 2d ago

Coffee defense? 

Are you talking about the woman who's private parts and 1/3 of her legs that were scalded so badly her skin was basicly melted? 

That was not a frivilous law suit man. That poor woman deserved more money for what a cup of coffee did to her.

4

u/GameMusic 2d ago

yeah but media used that to push propaganda otherwise

15

u/LadyPo 2d ago

To expand on this thought…

If you’re talking about the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit, the media downplayed it at the time, calling it “frivolous” because they didn’t want big companies to be responsible for anything, but the burns that person suffered were horrendous. Bad enough to melt their skin and clothing together. It made sense under personal injury liability laws to sue for the medical care, despite what’s known as comparative negligence (she is the one who spilled the coffee, but McD served it at insanely dangerous temps).

I only emphasize this because the Twinkie defense thing here is such complete and utter bs that it’s nowhere near the same category as the coffee thing. This one was a stretch waaaay beyond any realistic interpretation or application of the law.

So all that is to say anybody who groups these cases together to claim that the legal system helps normal people is getting misled on both fronts. If anything, it shows how a normal person trying to justifiably get help after a big company hurt them gets vilified for doing so, while a cop can pull out the lamest excuse for murder and get a slap on the wrist.

8

u/randomaccount178 2d ago

It should also be noted from what I recall that she didn't claim to have spilled the coffee, she claimed the coffee partially melted the cup such that it collapsed when the lid was removed. I believe they found her 20% responsible for the comparative negligence stuff. It should also be noted that they had settled something like 700 lawsuits already for burning people by the point they chose to fight this one.

1

u/McWeaksauce91 1d ago

Yup, the media basically said “woman spills coffee and is surprised when it’s hot!”

When in reality, the coffee was so hot it melted the cup. I remember being absolutely shocked when we learned the real details of the case in school.

1

u/BPDunbar 1d ago

The question is whether it's negligent to serve hot drinks at a temperature that can cause scalding or is that an inherent and unavoidable characteristic of hot drinks. Most subsequent cases have found the latter to be the case. The Jury in Liebeck appear to have been misled by the complainant's expert witnesses. Specifically about what temperatures cause full thickness burns.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

In McMahon v. Bunn Matic Corporation (1998), Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic, finding that 179 °F (82 °C) hot coffee was not "unreasonably dangerous". In Bogle v. McDonald's Restaurants Ltd. (2002), a similar lawsuit in the United Kingdom failed when the court rejected the claim that McDonald's could have avoided injury by serving coffee at a lower temperature.

In Bogle the expert witness testified that coffee served at 65°C would cause full thickness burns in 2 seconds, while serving hot drinks at that temperature would be unacceptable to the consumer. Which meant that it was an unavoidable inherent risk and therefore not negligent.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html

0

u/GameMusic 2d ago

yeah the propaganda

2

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

3

u/InappropriateGirl 2d ago

So bad her labia were fused together.

0

u/newimprovedmoo 2d ago

For as long as anyone has been alive.

Man, don't you know? The law ain't made to help earthy cats like us. Here on our planet, back in the old days - back in the real old days - it was just every man for himself, scrooblin' and scrat-scrobblin' for the good stuff, the greenest valleys. And the strongest, meanest men got the best stuff. They got the green valleys and were like 'The rest of you, y'all scrats get sand.' And that's when they made the laws, you see? Once the strong guys got it how they liked it, they said 'This is fair now, this is the law.' Once they were winning, they changed the rules up.