Spit Can Be A Deadly Weapon

No one likes to become recipient of a spit projectile. That is unless of course you are swapping it with your significant other. Sharing with your girlfriend or boyfriend certainly is not a crime either. Sharing it with that drunk girl or guy you met in a bar is not a crime. Two days later , not even remembering the encounter 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 that night mugging down with every available mouth to be found looking for that one lucky guy to spend the night with. She just left your place an hour ago. You thought you were special!

The two most logical questions are, first can you contract HIV or TB that way and is it a crime to spit on someone knowing you are a carrier?

At least as to the HIV issue, the a Dallas, Texas jury have said that spitting on someone knowing you are HIV positive is a crime.

Two weeks ago A homeless man who spit in the mouth and eye of a police officer and then taunted him, saying he was H.I.V. positive, was sentenced to 35 years in prison on Wednesday for harassing a public servant with a deadly weapon: his saliva. The key part of this ruling was the finding that the spit should be classified as a deadly weapon.

We will put aside the fact that the guy got 35 years for it. He 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 in a similar manner as well as more than two dozen other offenses. This mandated a minimum of 25 years without regards to the HIV issue. Lets take the fact that it was a cop out of it 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 responsbility?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, H.I.V. is primarily spread through sexual contact or the exchange of blood. 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 H.I.V.,” the agency reports. You can read the CDC fact sheet on HIV transmission here.

So we know right there through hard stats that there have been no known cases of HIV being transmitted through simple contact with saliva. Does that mean it can not happen? I guess you 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 AID paranoia days of toilets seats and drinking glasses? 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?

Everyone remembers Andrew Speaker, an Atlanta Lawyer with Multi-Drug resistant TB who got on several crowded planes knowing he had the disease and in fact having been advised not to travel without a mask. We know that TB is spread through the air from one person to another. The bacteria are put into the air when a person with TB disease of the lungs or throat 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 certainly didn’t intend to hurt anyone but intent is not necessarily 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 an 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 this, does your opinion change? Is not the issue is what and what is not “reasonably foreseeable” in these situations? Is it reasonably foreseeable you would contract HIV? Is it reasonably foreseeable you would contract T.B.?

I would frankly argue that Andrew Speaker’s conduct had a greater degree of foreseeability as to the consequences than the homeless guy spitting on a cop. What about beer bottle Sallie the HIV carrier and serial make out artist.

Are we verging on criminalizing ignorance as compared to criminal intent or reckless disregard?

What do you think?

(Please note that the Dallas case is currently up on appeal with one of the issues being the classification of saliva as a “deadly weapon”

“UNDERSTANDING HIV AND AIDS”

Original here