He was drunk. Intelligence gets tossed out of the window the more you drink...or didn't you know that?

So he drunk and therefore not in control of his actions.

Does this mean he still knowingly TRIED to pass on HIV through his saliva and deserves 35 years?

I dunno about the 35 unless going by Kev's info he had priors...but he knew enough that he thought he could pass HIV thru his spit so he may as well spit on a COP.


There are many cases out here now that have set precedence that knowingly trying to pass HIV and AIDS to others is a felony offense...

Right and having priors only adds to the case.

So being drunk wouldn't be a factor because he still supposedly knew what he was trying to do.

Intoxication is not a valid insanity plea. He knew he had HIV and he spit at the cop.

who said anything about an insanity plea?

R.I.F.

Exactly...however..being drunk reduced his ability to use common sense ;)

I'm not trying to be a devil's advocate or in any way argue on this guy's side, but just a question, does there have to be known "intent" in these cases, or does the fact that he is HIV-positive negate that? As in, does he have to say, "Oh, yeah, well have some AIDS, copper!" and then spit, obviously showing intent to harm, or does his spitting at anyone at anytime make it an "assault" because he carries the virus? Because don't some people just spit in people's faces out of frustration and to show disrespect as a matter of course, not in an "I'm gonna get you with my germs" kind of way?

;)

And under the law that means nada in such instances. :) I hadn't read all of the news stories so was making sure his intoxication wasn't one of the things used in his defense.

Maybe I haven't read closely enough...and maybe I am biased because I work in HIV/AIDS....but....the CDC says:

Saliva, Tears, and Sweat

HIV has been found in saliva and tears in very low quantities from some AIDS patients. It is important to understand that finding a small amount of HIV in a body fluid does not necessarily mean that HIV can be transmitted by that body fluid. HIV has not been recovered from the sweat of HIV-infected persons. Contact with saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shown to result in transmission of HIV.



Sooooo.....I don't understand how they were able to successfully argue that his spit was a deadly weapon.

Sen...I think this is where Nittany is trying to go....not so much that the fact of small amounts of saliva can't pass HIV(which is very good information to know BTW) ...but he had an intent to try...

Much like someone trying to intentionally rob someone with an unloaded gun.

Moreso, the intent and the resulting fear from the intent is what got him time moreso than the actual act itself.

The action: He spat at the eyes and MOUTH of the officer...he was intent on trying to pass it if he could.....if he just spat on the officer for the sake of spitting, ok...but he was very specific on WHERE he was aiming his spit. (as the report states...)

His intent: if he was successful at getting his spit on those specific areas his thought was probably, HA! You arrest me, now you got my disease!!

So we can convict now on what one can assume someone was thinking? Terrifying.

nittany...from what the report says (and that's all I have to go by) if it is true that he was specifically aiming for the mouth and eyes in an effort to try and spread his infection, and it can be proven that it was his intent to spread said infection....if the spit fits, you must convict.

ETA: I just did a precursery search about people convicted for spreading HIV:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=man...&ei=UTF-8&vm=r

It's a punishable crime if you knowingly try to spread HIV

LOLOLOLOLOLOL! You go, Johnnie C. ;)

DST implied it... at least I felt so.
You have some e-anger issues