HIV-Positive Man Sentenced to 35 Years for Spitting on Police Officer

HIV is carried in virtually every bodily fluid and, though HIGHLY unlikely, you could theoretically transmit the virus through saliva.

The example an AIDS educations specialist gave us in class was that in order to actually transmit HIV through saliva, one person would have to have an open wound that the other person continually slathered with their saliva for about an hour.

 

Doesn't HIV last very little time in the open air? If the guy wants to use HIV as a deadly weapon, he'd surely do something like trying to get a cut on the officer's body, cut his own arm, and try to get their blood mixed. Or at least spit on the officer's cut.

Is the jury so out of touch with reality that they're the type of people who think getting touched by gay people will result in AIDs or something?

35 years is crazy. I don't think it's out of line for him to get a few years for harrassing a police officer. But 35 years is in the rape/murder zone of punishment.

 

do the words "cruel and unusual punishment" ring a bell with you? No?

35 years is very, very harsh for spitting on someone. I could see 10-15 being justified since it was assault (with a deadly weapon i guess).

 

I've always been told that mosquitos can't give you HIV, but needles can. Now, if a mosquito sucks on an HIV infected person, and then goes over to you, how can it not be transmitted?
I don't know if I can believe that.

 

Seriously, 10 -15 years? For spitting? I just don't see how you can take away 10-15 years of someones life for spitting on someone. 35 years is just absolute lunacy. We really need to chill out.

 

15 yrs for spitting.

0 years for shooting an unarmed man 50 times.

It pays to wear a badge if you want to commit crime.

 

And you want to know why people don't like police officers and have no faith in our legal system. Police officers get to play by different rules just because they applied for a job that no one else wants.

 

I'm glad you know the words cruel and unusual punishment...but court of appeals don't overturn sentences set down by a jury unless there is a legal basis for overturning it. Seeing as 35 was in the range of punishment for the crime, just saying "cruel and unusual" doesn't work. And as I explained in the post before that - 10-15 isn't even in the range of punishment, the minimum would've been 25. If you have a problem with that write your state congressman, don't expect the court of appeals to just come up with new law because you're offended with the results...