Dan White was not a monster!!
-
CaliCurmudgeon — 15 years ago(February 22, 2011 12:53 PM)
Milk asked for White's support on a "gay" issue, and White asked for a quid pro quo, first with respect to not placing a halfway house in his district, then with respect to Supervisor pay. Milk stabbed him in the back both times.
No that doesn't justify shooting Milk, but to gloss over Milk's political sleaziness is a shortfall of this movie. -
CaliCurmudgeon — 15 years ago(February 24, 2011 06:07 AM)
Here:
http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-01-30/news/white-in-milk/1/
Here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/23/INGRE343501.DTL&ao=3
And Here:
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0521df.html
Again, this does not justify shooting and killing Harvey Milk. And Daniel White should probably have been convicted of Murder One and not 2nd degree / manslaughter.
However, since Harvey's death hes become Martin Luther Milk. And he was anything but. He wasnt some sort of holy saint. He could be a corrupt maneuvering swine. -
Luxn — 15 years ago(February 24, 2011 10:47 PM)
Corrupt, maneuvering (sic) swine? At least he wasn't a murderous one though, eh?
Are you seriously trying to lessen the horror of this crime by demonising the victim? I am not suggesting your info on Milk is wrong but it pales into insignificance compared to the atrocities White committed.
If White was 'driven' to this behaviour, then it was only because he had a low tolerance for not getting his own way, or for things not working out the way he wanted. I would suggest that politics was totally the wrong profession for him.
And so what if he had issues that made him slightly unstable (and it had to be slight at most or he would not have been able to do his job)? There are very, very few truly evil people in the world. Most of those who commit murder and atrocities are 'made' into the monsters they become. They all face prison and consequences and are called monsters. Why shouldn't White be judged in the same way?
Anyone who murders two people in cold blood is a monster. Why are some of you having a problem admitting that? -
-
greenbanzanas — 16 years ago(March 06, 2010 09:48 AM)
Somehow I seriously doubt that you are willing to give many other criminals the same benefit of the doubt. There is a huge difference between what we, as lay people, call crazy and the legal defense sufficient to excuse culpability. I just wonder on what basis you argue he was legally crazy, and don't tell me that he was suffering from depression. That contention would tend to jeopardize our entire justice system.
-
multiplepov-1 — 16 years ago(March 17, 2010 03:57 PM)
Actually, this movie was too kind to Dan White by half. Here (in general terms, no dates) are the events leading up to the assassinations:
The promoters behind Pier 39 (a commercial venture that was slogging through the many demands that SF's liberal Board of Supervisors placed on real estate development) assigned a concession on very favorable financial terms (a baked potato fast food place, I think) to Dan White.
Dan White (unhappy on SF's liberal Board of Supervisors) announced he was quitting due to financial hardship (considered a "part time" job, supervisors were paid a miniscule salary; if I remember correctly, $9,000 a year) so he and his family could run the concession.
What was not revealed and published in the San Francisco Chronicle until long after the trial ended with its ridiculous sentence of "involuntary manslaughter" was this: after White quit, the promoters behind Pier 39 informed him that the only reason he'd gotten the concession on such favorable financial terms was
because
he was on the Board of Supervisors. Now, any pro-Pier 39 stance he'd taken earlier on the Board, helping nudge the development through, may have been honest (conservatives being pro-business). But now he knew that if he was going to keep his deal, he had to get back on the Board of Supervisors.
And soDan White asked for his job back (not so he could represent his district but so that he could represent the Pier 39 promoters). Mayor Moscone, happy to have the Dan White thorn out of his side, understandably refused to reconsider the resignation.
So, the motive behind Dan White's assassination of Mayor Moscone was anger based on his potential financial loss.
Any way you look at it, though, Dan White's assassination of Harvey Milk was pure hate crime.
So, sureDan White was
emotionally disturbed
. Like anyone harboring a grudge would be.
Here are some points to remember when weighing whether he was "legally" insane:- He carried the gun from home to City Hall.
- He avoided metal detectors by going through a window.
- He put on a friendly face to guards and others he passed on the way to reach his first target, Moscone.
- He shot Moscone from a safe distance, then walked up to the prostate man, put the gun to the back of his head and fired again, execution style, to make sure he was dead.
- He walked clear around the rotunda to reach Milk on the other side.
- As he'd killed Moscone, he first shot Milk from a distance, then fired another point blank shot into his skull.
Dan White knew exactly what he was doing.
"I've always resisted the notion that knowledge ruined paradise." Prof. Xavier
-
alpeaston — 16 years ago(March 26, 2010 09:19 AM)
yet he was a hero as a fireman,rescuing a very elderly lady from a burning building,& had such morals a cop that he resigned after informing on a fellow officer who beat up a handcuffed suspect,wheres the compassion for him?
WHERE IS THE COMPASSION FOR HIM??????????????????????!!!!!!!!!?????
Lying right alongside the bullet ridden bodies of Harvey Milk and Mayor Mascone who he assassinated in a calculated and cold blood manor!
I only regret I was not in San Fran when that "verdict" came down. I would have personally enjoyed turning over and burning a few police cars and smashing a couple of windows (and you would have to personally know me to understand how unlikely that typically would be for me)!
An immense travesty of justice if ever there was one AND it was only rectified by the nut-jobs own hand. At least HE had the integrity courage to do the right thing even if the homophobic jurors did not!
"LORD, PLEASE SAVE ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS!!!" -
fidelio1980 — 15 years ago(October 31, 2010 01:33 PM)
I think it was ridiculous that Dan White got such a light sentence.
That said, howeverthe "twinkie defense" is widely misunderstood. His lawyers never claimed that eating junk food made him crazy, or that it had anything to do with the murder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense
Under California law at the time, if someone suffered from a "diminished capacity," they couldn't be convicted of a premeditated crime. That's not the same as an insanity defense. White's lawyers argued that he was responsible for the homicidesand they also argued that because he was depressed, he suffered from a diminished capacity, and so the murders shouldn't be considered first degree murders.
In court, they showed the jury a lot of evidence that White was depressed, and one sign that they mentioned was that he was usually a health nut, but when he spiraled into depression, he started gorging on junk food. The jury agreed with his lawyers that he was depressed to the point of having a diminished capacity.
Do I think Dan White got the right sentence? Absolutely not. The idea that depression means a crime wasn't premeditated is stupid. It didn't take a long time for people to figure out it was stupid - before long, the laws were changed.
But it's not fair to suggest that the jury was motivated by homophobia. They actually did exactly what they were supposed to do under California law at that time, which held that when a defendant suffers from "diminished capacity," they shouldn't be convicted of a crime like first-degree-murder. -
Prismark10 — 15 years ago(January 28, 2011 03:46 AM)
He may not had been a monster but he killed the Mayor of SF as well as the politician, Harvey Milk and can count himself lucky that he only got 5 years.
Yes he had issues (personal and financial)and maybe suffered from PTSD but killing his fellow politicians is definitely extreme.
As for not wanting a teenage asylum, well there have to be put somewhere. The irony that someone who had mental issues did not want an asylum for the mentally ill in his district!
Its that man again!! -
Straight_Pride — 15 years ago(February 02, 2011 01:14 PM)
I agree that he is not a monster.
From what I saw in the film, Harvey Milk convinced the Mayor not to let Dan White have his job back.
So his crime wasn't a hate crime, I thought it was revenge (Not as cruel).
Dan White was wrong to kill them because murder is wrong but I can't help if I feel sorry for him and the way thing turned out for him. -
stefanheikel — 15 years ago(February 02, 2011 09:29 PM)
Actually several city councilmen/women told Mayor Moscone not to give Dan White his job back, not just Milk. Also, Did White ever even find out Harvey did that behind his back? If no, then what was his real motivation? I still think a big factor was that to Dan White, one of the "thems" was getting power and influence while he was losing it.
-
rrb — 14 years ago(April 14, 2011 08:55 PM)
OP: you forgot the part about your "hero" murdering 2 people in cold blood.
Read The Mayor of Castro Street, which documents White's admitting he planned the murders, and intended to kill 2 more people during his spree, including future SF mayor Willie Brown. This was not the impulsive act of someone who couldn't control himself.
Dan White was every inch a monster. I'm glad he's dead, and I hope he suffered the pains of hell before he offed himself. -
straburyred-38 — 14 years ago(August 16, 2011 05:01 AM)
Where's the compassion for him?
And I might ask where the hell was Dan White's compassion before he pumped George Moscone and Harvey Milk full of lead?!
I don't have Bieber fever. I have Bieber nausea.