Comments on: HIV-Positive Man Gets 35 Years for Spitting on Officer

By: Jericho

Jericho — Sun, 25 May 2008 14:17:55 +0000

Dunder, you would be wise to leave your pseudo-science locked inside that ignorant head of yours.

Don’t be waving a pen to a public servant. A pen can be a deadly weapon!

However, it’s probably more to do with the man’s homelessness and HIV, isn’t it, Dumber?

By: Oregon Case Expands Definition of Sexual Assault « JONATHAN TURLEY

Oregon Case Expands Definition of Sexual Assault « JONATHAN TURLEY — Tue, 20 May 2008 19:17:21 +0000

[...] Polk County Circuit Judge Fred Avera held that semen constitutes a “sexual or intimate part of the defendant” — not an unreasonable position except that the law refers to “body parts” coming into contact. However, the question is whether this would extend to other bodily fluids like saliva. We recently saw a major sentence handed down based on the use of saliva to assault an officer by an HIV-positive individual, click here. [...]

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:15:45 +0000

dunder:

“I don’t have a problem with sending a severe message.”
********************

I believe deterrence comes from consistent application of the law and sentencing to an entire class of defendants given similar crimes. I think it is an abuse of due process and equal protection to single out one defendant as an example to “send a message.” How do we know which one to choose? Is there any rational basis to pick this crime over another? What about choices made because the victim is law enforcement versus non-law enforcement, racial distinctions of the victim or perpetrators, and gender distinctions? The whole process of scapegoating or, more properly pharmakos, is a vestige of our past we can do without. Sentencing based on the facts of the case seems adequate for me without all the social engineering and judicial posturing.

By: dunder

dunder — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:13:37 +0000

Saliva can but does not usually contain the aids virus.
It wouldn’t take much, just an abrasion, as long as there was open bleeding or a faint blood sign on the skin indicating an opening for bacteria and viruses.

Another concern would be whether the saliva contained blood perhaps, from the attacker injuring himself or intentionally biting on his tongue to bring forth contaminated blood into his saliva. If any of these officers had been bruised in this altercation that in itself could have made them potentially susceptible to an infection by blood tainted saliva.

I don’t have a problem with sending a severe message. How much different than waiving an unloaded gun at an officer when he doesn’t know it is unloaded is this?

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:10:40 +0000

rafflaw:

I would think facing jail time, he would have had to have counsel appointed under Gideon v. Wainwright. You do have a valid question though since, after all, this is Texas, where following rulings of the US Supreme Court seems optional.

By: rafflaw

rafflaw — Fri, 16 May 2008 11:28:47 +0000

Was this man represented at trial? The story does not make that clear. It only quotes “his attorney”, but does not tell us if he had an attorney. I would expect this kind of ignorance of science in Texas. How can he waive his appeal rights? That is one of the reasons I want to know if he had an attorney at trial. I would think that if this case can get appealed that it would eventually be overridden by an appellate court that actually listens to science.