Quote:
Originally Posted by nittanyalum
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.
|
My understanding is that this comes on the heels of a jury trial. There's a presumption of innocence in all criminal proceedings. So no, I don't think this is ever going to be an "automatic" assumption. A jury here found that the defendant intended to transmit the disease. This is a jury's finding -- no presumption of anything here (other than innocence).