Comments on: Dallas Prosecutor Claims Spittle is Deadly Weapon

By: Chad Johnson

Chad Johnson — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:33:19 +0000

It’s plain to me, that saliva is not a deadly weapon, (nor is the HIV virus, really) and a good lawyer should be able to overturn a conviction of “assault with a deadly weapon”. He didn’t premedatatively devise any special technique or delivery system, and he’s entitled to have both saliva and mouth wherever he goes in our society. =P

However, it certainly was a simple assault, and if Willie admitted, or was properly proven to be hoping to infect the officer, then it seems fair to charge him for his intent, however successful that he was.

By: Pepe Johnson

Pepe Johnson — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:01:59 +0000

I think that HIV/AIDS is often treated as something other than a disease. While I don’t want to downplay the gravity of a positive diagnosis, I do think a lot of people, including this prosecutor, overreact to someone with HIV. You’re absolutely right when you talk about her this to play on fears and stereotypes.

What if the officer were HIV+ and the man had the pneumonia virus? Spitting on him could have also resulted in his death, so would the pneumonia virus be considered a deadly weapon. Even without a positive HIV status, pneumonia can be deadly.

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:18:15 +0000

Indeed. Spitting is considered an assault, no question.
Only if the spitter has an injury to the mouth and blood is mixed in with the spit, could the charge have some legitimacy.
And poz blood that gets into the eyes would pose a risk of infection.
That is not mentioned here though, if this is the case.

Otherwise, I agree that the prosecutor IS fostering ignorance and bigotry against those who are HIV+.
And because of the station of her office, she shouldn’t be allowed to do so.