Saliva as a weapon nets 35 years

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

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

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

if the spit fits, you must convict.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL! You go, Johnnie C.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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

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

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

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

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

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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

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

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

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

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.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

[Kevin]

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).