No one likes to become recipient of a spit projectile, unless, of course, you are swapping it with your significant other. Sharing saliva with your girlfriend or boyfriend certainly is not a crime. Sharing it with that drunk girl or guy you meet in a bar is not a crime. However, two days later ,when you do not even remember the encounter, if you get a call from the Health Department that a known serial HIV boinker or TB (Tuberculosis) carrier was making his/her rounds through the Dallas bars the night you were cruising the same bars, should you become alarmed that the person the Health Department is searching for just left your place an hour ago? .And you thought you were special!
The two most logical questions are: first can you contract HIV or TB that way, and, second, is it a crime to spit on someone knowing you are a carrier?
At least as to the HIV issue, A Dallas, Texas jury has decided that it is a crime to spit on someone when you know you are HIV positive.
Two weeks ago, a homeless man spit in the mouth and eye of a police officer and then taunted him, saying he was HIV positive. On Wednesday, he was sentenced to 35 years in prison for harassing a public servant with a deadly weapon—his saliva. The key part of this ruling was the finding that the saliva should be classified as a deadly weapon.
We will put aside the fact that the guy got 35 years for the crime. The severity of the sentence was affected by the fact that he was convicted under a “habitual offender statute“. He had been convicted of attacking other officers in a similar manner as well as committing more than two dozen other offenses. This mandated a minimum of 25 years without regards to the HIV issue. Let’s take the fact that it was a cop out of the equation as well and get down to the basic issue at hand:
“If you are a carrier of a deadly disease that may, in very rare circumstances, be transmitted by your spit, does that make your spit a “deadly weapon” under the law? If you say yes, does that not open up a whole “Pandora’s Box” of criminal responsibility?
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV is primarily spread through sexual contact or the exchange of blood or other bodily fluids. Although there have been rare cases of transmission through severe bites, “contact with saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shown to result in transmission of HIV,” the agency reports. You can read the CDC fact sheet on HIV transmission here.
There have been no known cases of HIV being transmitted through simple contact with saliva. Does that mean HIV can never be transmitted through saliva? Never say never, but the odds are remote in the extreme. But when we allow a remote “struck by lightning” possibility to justify a “deadly weapon” finding, are we hearkening back to the AIDS paranoia days of all toilet seats and drinking glasses being carriers of the disease? Was this conviction based on ignorance or science?
If we accept that premise that spit can be a deadly weapon, we also have to accept that the HIV carrier who lets you take a sip of his beer or coke has just committed a crime. If he had evil intent in letting you share the drink, would not the crime be the same taking out the public servant element? If he simply was not thinking about it or paying attention to his drink has he/she committed a crime? You can see where this has the potential to go. The slope gets very slippery. Will it even stop with HIV?
Andrew Speaker, an Atlanta lawyer with multi-drug resistant TB boarded several crowded planes knowing he had the disease, and, in fact, had been advised not to travel without a mask. We know that TB is spread from person to person as the bacteria are released into the air when a person with TB, a disease of the lungs or throa, coughs or sneezes. Amid all the hysteria, I don’t remember hearing much talk about whether any crimes were committed by Mr. Speaker. Did he commit any crimes? He probably didn’t intend to hurt anyone, but intent does not necessarily constitute an element of possible crimes on the books that either he or the HIV carrier sharing the beer may have committed.
You can read the CDC fact sheet on multi-drug resistant TB here.
There is also a crime in many, if not all, states called Reckless Endangerment.
The general definition of reckless endangerment (this can and will vary by state) is as follows:
“A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantially certain to cause that result. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.”
Now that you know the meaning of reckless endangerment as defined by law, does your opinion change? The issue becomes what is and what is not “reasonably foreseeable” in these situations. Is it reasonably foreseeable that you may contract HIV through saliva? Is it reasonably foreseeable you may contract TB through saliva?
Does Andrew Speaker’s conduct had a greater degree of foreseeable consequences than the homeless guy spitting on a cop? What about Beer Bottle Sallie, the HIV carrier, and Serial Make-Out Artist?
Are we on the verge of criminalizing ignorance or simply disregarding criminal foreseeability?
May 31st, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Great photo to accompany this story! )
May 31st, 2008 at 9:42 pm
He did spit on him and declared that he’d infected him with HIV. That in itself is pretty damned serious all on it’s own. The fact that it was with the intent of scaring the shit out of the policeman is serious enough on it’s own. That he might have truly wanted to infect the man with HIV is even worse. It adds and piles up in droves.
To be honest I think he deserves it. It’s playing with people’s lives. If you know you have a disease, don’t spread it, and if you do, you should be prepared for consequences.
Ruining someone’s life is still ruining someone’s life no matter the instrument or how you go doing it.
May 31st, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Does anyone realize that you CAN’T CONTRACT HIV FROM SPIT! Whoever write this article obviously did not go through 8th grade health class. It really makes me angry that so many people will blindly read and believe everything they read. Check on the facts, read from reliable sources, and apparently this author is NOT a reliable source!!
May 31st, 2008 at 9:45 pm
You gotta be kidding me. Getting spit and shot at comes with the badge. Can’t handle it, then get another job!
JJ
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
May 31st, 2008 at 9:46 pm
@Morghus: “He did spit on him and declared that he’d infected him with HIV. That in itself is pretty damned serious all on it’s own.”
While it is certainly despicable, there would be no criminal liability for that. At most it could be a civil tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress if the person was not a cop
May 31st, 2008 at 9:48 pm
@Mel: Melissa : I wrote the article and you clearly didn’t read it or you didn’t graduate 8th grade and cant read. I quote the CDC and link to the CDC fact sheet. Sorry but you are the illiterate idiot here.
May 31st, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Of course you can contract HIV through spit. Imagine someone who has a sore or a cut in their mouth or throat, you know those damned chapped lips bleed sometimes. I rest my case.
May 31st, 2008 at 10:02 pm
@Mel: Trace amounts of the HIV virus can be found inside of an infected person’s saliva. Transmission through dry kissing is impossible. However, transmission through french kissing is considered to be remotely possible, although highly improbable. To this date, though, there have been NO recorded cases of HIV transmission through saliva.
Also, as Mitko said, having cuts or sores in your mouth substantially raises the risk, as it gives the virus a path to your bloodstream.
May 31st, 2008 at 10:04 pm
@Steve: Mel is a no credibility idiot anyways since she commented without even reading the article. I hate when people do that. If you are not going to read it, why are you here?
May 31st, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I don't know know how accurate the information is that I got, but we learned in like grammar school the odds of catching hiv/aids through vaginal sex, how anal sex is significantly more dangerous and oral sex was only something like 15% chance. Of course I don't know how much less dangerous spit in the eye is than 'cum' in the mouth/eye.
Regardless, I think the act its self of spitting in someone's eye knowing he had aids is in the least terroristic and maybe even borderline attempted murder. Everyone can complain all they want that its not communicable through saliva, but that doesn't mean that either of the parties involved knew that. If someone with little understanding of drugs tries to overdose on acetamenephine, I'd still call that an attemted suicide, albeit a very pathetic and uninformed attempt.
I must admit that I was taken aback when I read 35 years, but the fact that this is a reoccuring matter certainly brings it into perspective. I don't think spit should be considered a deadly weapon given the facts, but I do believe he should be held liable for terrorizing that police officer to the full extent.
Digged up.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:08 pm
This is ridiculous. Assault with a deadly weapon? The man would have had to dump a gallon of his saliva directly onto a bullet wound on the officer to even have the possibility of infecting him with H.I.V.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:11 pm
The intent was to inflict harm to the peace officer. The fact that the suspect was homeless is irrelevent. And the potency of the spit (versus using a more lethal gallon of spit for example) is also not relevent. The fact that the suspect was not very good at inflicting bodily harm because he didn’t use enough spit does NOT diminish his intent to use it as a lethal weapon.
Unlike Speaker who was just an arrogant, selfish and reckless prick, the spitter in your story intended malice, which as you know carries a much higher level of culpability that that tool Speaker.
Because someone doesn’t kill someone with their intentional act of violance doesn’t mean that they didn’t mean to not kill them.
Michael M.s last blog post..The Bozone
May 31st, 2008 at 11:27 pm
It takes only 1 virus to enter a person’s body to transmit a disease. Don’t be an idiot and believe that it is not possible because no known cases have ever been reported.
Doctor: Sir, you have AIDS.
Man: How can that be, I’ve only been spit on by transients with HIV!?
Doctor (thinks): oh boy this is going to look great in the New England Journal of Medicine!!
June 1st, 2008 at 12:20 am
There is no known case of AIDS being transferred by spit to spit contact. However, there are known cases of AIDS being transferred by spit to blood contact, such as when the perpetrator bites the victim. Had the officer had an open wound that the spit came in contact with he could have contracted aids. It is not uncommon for an individual to have an open wound in or on their mouth, i.e. chapped lips that are cracked or a bite on the tongue while eating will create open wounds. In this case the perpetrator was specifically targeting this officer in an attempt to give him a deadly disease. I would guess he did this because he doesn’t like being homeless and wanted to return to prison where he has a roof over his head, a bed to sleep in and three square meals a day.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:28 am
While it’s true even a single HIV virus can infect a person. The odds of getting HIV from a needle stick (having a needle of an HIV positive person IN YOU) is only around 0.4%.
Assuming the “attacker” actually believed you could transmit HIV through spit, it depends how ridiculous an attack can be considered a deadly weapon. If someone through a jelly bean at you saying he’s going to kill you with it is that attempted murder? theres a chance the jelly bean might get in your mouth and make you choke. Or more reasonably if someone shoots a champagne cork at you with malice (which have been known to kill people..not exactly sure how but they have). Seeing as we have recorded evidence of corks killing ppl and not HIV saliva transmission the requirements for a deadly weapon have to be quite reduced. Human spit itself is chock full of bacteria that is potentially lethal in the right circumstances so the same exact situation with an HIV negative person should cause the same response. If spit is a deadly weapon then so are champagne corks and jelly beans and the obvious kicking and punching anyone does who’s resisting arrest. Will these all be deadly weapons too?
If you’re arguing intent to kill then that’s different. We’ll just have to accept lame attempts at homicide as well. Throwing sponges or something. Either way it’ll be nearly impossible to prove in court anyway. You can always lie and say you just wanted to scare/hurt the guy. Making this logistically difficult if anything.
Oh and as for the acetaminophen suicide. acetaminophen overdose will very easily kill you. It’s one of the leading causes of drug suicides actually and one of the first things doctors test for in the ER. Since this is the policy now and since treatment is pretty good I guess you can say the success rate is lower now but as long as you find a way to stay away from a hospital for a little while then you’ll die very easily (as easily as you can by taking drugs of course which in itself isn’t that effective).
June 1st, 2008 at 1:04 am
@ Bobbie
I’m glad you brought up the fact the acetaminophin can kill you. It’s actually one of the more deadly medications on the market. I have a friend who is a peramedic/fireman. He’s gone on quite a number of calls where people “attempt suicide” as a desperate plea for help. Unfortunately they wait too long to call the paramedics and by the time help arrives they’ve already absorbed too much acetaminophen into their blood stream. It shuts down the kidneys (I think that’s right, although it might be the liver) and the patient dies a few days later. There’s nothing the doctors can do. You simply can’t get a donor organ that fast. If you are going to “attempt suicide” as a desperate plea for help don’t use acetaminophen, or at least call for an ambulance immediately after swallowing the pills.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:17 am
I think TB needs more attention in this thread. Also, if the spitter has the intent to spread a disease with no known cure, and the ability to completely destroy the person/s life that is being spit on, then the spitter should be treated the same way as if someone tried to shoot someone and missed. Doesn’t matter that the bullet could or couldn’t have hit you, the intent was still there. Same with diseases, it doesn’t matter that you could or couldn’t catch TB or AIDs from someone spitting on you, the intent was still there.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:52 am
Is a pen a deadly weapon? No? How about if you stab someone 15 times in the rib cage with it?
A deadly weapon is not always about what the item is, it can be about how it is used.
June 1st, 2008 at 5:49 am
I think that if you try to shoot someone with a gun that you believe to be loaded but in reality is empty it is still attempted murder. Seems kind of similar to this case. Even if the officer didn’t have any open sores that would allow the virus ready access to his blood stream the perp didn’t know that and he tried to give him a deadly disease.
June 1st, 2008 at 7:56 am
Love the picture for the story! Brings back some great memories from Silence of the Lambs
Simon
June 1st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
it comes down to if the assailant believed it was a deadly weapon or not (if the gun was loaded or not). it’s like the difference between 1st degree murder and manslaughter. In manslaughter a guy actually dies but there was no intent so its not as bad. If the spitter knew you couldn’t get HIV that way then he should be clear on that charge (hard to determine but in a court of reasonable doubt, the person should probably not be charged on that). If he was actually trying to infect the guy then I guess you can call it a weapon, albeit a weapon that doesn’t work. Spent some time looking up the definition and pens and jellybeans and stuff actually can be included as deadly weapons so I guess spit can too. But again this is all about intent which is extremely easy to deny in this case.
@kirralin23
BTW, acetaminophen kills the liver. and, yeah, it isn’t a pleasant way to die. You last a few days while you slowly get poisoned to death by your own body’s waste products.
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:18 am
Well, if you were a bum, i can probably garuntee you did not brush your teeth for quite a while.
If thats the case, it wouldn’t be uncommon for his mouth to contain blood from gingivitis or other gum diseases.
So in essence, there could be blood in his saliva.
Whoever says its impossible to contract hiv from saliva is retarded.
Its possible to contract HIV from saliva that contains blood, hello people!
June 9th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
too bad it’s never happened in recorded history yet.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I think what is important is that spitting is disgusting, and I pointed this story out to my 11 year old to show that Mommy was not the only one who took his spitting on his sister seriously.