Back in 1978, a man on the Board of Supervisors, Dan White, walked into San Francisco’s City Hall and fatally shot fellow supervisor Harvey Milk, and city mayor, George Moscone.
During the trial, White’s attorneys launched what would become a defense plea mocked around the world — and rightly so — called the “Twinkie Defense.”
The defense argued that White’s “diminished capacity” stemmed from a depression fueled by foods high in sugar, such as those found in Hostess Twinkies.
Sadly, the nutty defense worked in getting White off for first degree murder — though he was convicted of manslaughter — and the “White Night riots” were held in response to the verdict.
Clearly, this was a made up defense, and it has gone down in the annals of time as a sham, ridiculed the world over by both the legal community and ordinary citizens.
But, fast forward 35 years or so, and you will see that “crazy defenses” for horrific crimes, and the natural outrage around them, still abound.
Last night on Martha MacCallum’s First 100 Days show on FOX, an attorney for one of the defendants in the “Rockville Rape” case threw out yet another wacky defense for the “sensationalism” round this case: President Donald Trump’s “disgusting vitriol” regarding illegal immigrants!
No, no one should be shocked and outraged at this crime based on the facts known thus far: not that the defendant was a grown man going to school with a child. Not that rape is horrific by itself, but coupled with the fact it’s a crime committed in anger toward a child makes it more so; and certainly not that his client shouldn’t even have been in this country…Nope: racism.
This “defense” is getting a workout, too. In the UK, a teen, abused and sexually exploited for over a year, is claiming authorities knew of her plight but did nothing because they didn’t want to “be perceived as racist” against her grown Middle Eastern abuser.
Is the rape of a child – or anyone — a crime? Of course it is. So who cares about the nationality of the person charged with committing the crime?
Recently, Chris Cuomo stated that 12 year-old girls weren’t being taught “tolerance” thus their discomfort at having to share a locker room with naked grown hairy men.
i wonder if she is the problem or her overprotective and intolerant dad? teach tolerance. https://t.co/DbxAkrrH7n
— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) February 23, 2017
It’s our “intolerance” toward those committing crimes against children that’s to blame for societal ills?
Less than 1% of the population (the transgendered) advocate for laws that effect all of us, including our children, but we aren’t “tolerant?”
A political party pushes for a willful defiance of the rule of law so that people here illegally not only get to stay, but get benefits that some of our legal citizens do not get, and yet we are not “tolerant?”
Cities (and states) shield criminals committing heinous atrocities, but we are not “tolerant?”
How far must society fall in order to make us so, in the eyes of the left?
[Note: This post was written by Marie Stroughter. Follow her on Twitter @MarieStroughter]