Saliva as a weapon nets 35 years
 

DALLAS (AP) — An HIV-positive man convicted of spitting into the eye and mouth of a Dallas police officer has been sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Because a jury found that Willie Campbell used his saliva as a deadly weapon, the 42-year-old will have to serve half his sentence before becoming eligible for parole. He was sentenced Wednesday.

Campbell was being arrested in May 2006 for public intoxication when he began resisting and kicking inside the patrol car, Dallas police office Dan Waller testified.

Campbell was convicted of harassment of a public servant.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-suspect_N.htm

I think there's an appeal in here somewhere.....this doesn't sound right.

dude...he can appeal all he wants but he knowingly tried to pass a disease like that to someone else...forcefully I may add....that officer has to live the rest of his life in fear.

Nah...ain't happening...

That is scary for real.

Apparently, he had a prior conviction where he pled out to 5 attempted murders (with something other than saliva) and did 13 years . My guess is that had a lot to do with things here.

But the amount of the virus present in saliva is generally not enough to transmit the virus, so I don't see how it was a deadly weapon. I mean it's gross when anyone spits, but with the lysozymes present in saliva...

thus the 'knowingly tried to pass' part.

He spit in a cops face... smart people don't do that. I don't think society is missing out on much by having this loser behind bars.

He should just get his butt whooped.

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that he needs to be punished, but 35 years does seem a bit excessive.

But, as Kevin stated, he had priors, so that might explain why he received such a long sentence.

So he can sue the police department? I would love to see the cop Rodney King his ass for 5 minutes or so because he deserves it... just like Rodney King deserved it.

Good.

I remember reading an article a few years ago about 'sliming'. Inmates would mix blood, spit, snot, urine, and uh...other bodily fluids and then sling it at guards in hopes of infecting them with various diseases.

Even if it was not possible to infect them, the inmates didn't know that. They did so in the hopes of causing them harm with a possible fatal disease.

Cops have no business in vigilante or street justice.

Good luck with that.

Absolutely disgusting.

I remember watching Lock Up where inmates in the "medical ward" would assault guards with urine and feces when the guards entered the cell.

That's what I was thinking. Hooray for all of those years of Drug Ed!

Still, spitting on someone is freakin' nasty!

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

Most crimes have, since ancient English common law times included an element of intent.

In criminal statutes, you'll see words like "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently" as being a big part of the element of a crime. In latin, it's the mens rea, or the 'guilty mind.'

Murder in the first degree, for example, everyone knows that murder is "The intentional killing of another human being with malice aforethought." Half of the crime is the mental state.

The other half is the actus reus, the 'guilty act.'

But as I said above, in this particular case, this defendant's priors had a role to play. He had pled out and served 13 years for five counts of attempted murder... so this sentence, in my opinion is a public service. This man, if left in the general population will kill. He has shown before that he is capable of doing it and here, these facts, if true point out that he would have no qualms with passing a mostly fatal disease to his arresting officer.

This kind of trash deserves to be locked up.

Hence the man in the OP getting 35 years for it.

All the examples in your link are of people having unprotected sex, though.

But......say I was REALLY angry with somebody and tried to give them a concussion with a helium balloon. Y'all know good and daggone well a helium balloon is not going to give somebody a concussion.

Furthermore, I think if I was going to spit on someone, I'd aim for the face, too. I think, to be honest, the HIV in this case is incidental.

I am in total agreement, trust me, I am not in any way trying to argue on behalf of this particular dirtball, I'm just trying to clarify if someone with HIV will automatically be assumed to be intending to harm by spitting in someone's face, even if it's just an in-the-heat-of-the-moment-reaction and the "intent" was just to show disrespect, versus someone who makes it verbally or otherwise patently clear that they're spitting in an attempt to "give" the person something.

LOL @ the balloon scenario and re: the bolded part, that's what I'm trying to get to and have continually failed at, apparently.

^^^ I'm with you.

If that is what you assume...but then hey you assumed there was an insanity plea too...

Hey pretty swift kid you are....now you are catching up!

aww come on now man...a helium ballon.....unless it was filled with a virus...