Not truly debunked, just highly unlikely and depending on some unusual circumstances.

It's not actually saliva, but the potential that the mouth of the person spitting could have an open sore (ulceration, severe gingivitis, what have you) and said spit getting into the bloodstream of the another person. I'm not an ophthalmologist but I think the eye is pretty vascular.

Dan Savage recently quoted a CDC expert stating at last one confirmed case of oral transmission.

This is from the CDC fact sheet about the transmission of HIV:
"HIV has been found in saliva and tears in very low quantities from some AIDS patients. It is important to understand that finding a small amount of HIV in a body fluid does not necessarily mean that HIV can be transmitted by that body fluid. HIV has not been recovered from the sweat of HIV-infected persons. Contact with saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shown to result in transmission of HIV."

I'd say that last sentence in the most important one in this case.

You can find the fact sheet here:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm

Was typing out the same response, glad to see there are other Savage readers here.

It even happened when he didn't have his full faculties (drunk). It doesn't mitigate his action, but it seems like it would undercut the claim that a conscious intent to harm the officer via transmission, no?

Also from the CDC, same link as above. I think this what the CDC expert in Savage Love was referring to:

"Casual contact through closed-mouth or "social" kissing is not a risk for transmission of HIV. Because of the potential for contact with blood during "French" or open-mouth kissing, CDC recommends against engaging in this activity with a person known to be infected. However, the risk of acquiring HIV during open-mouth kissing is believed to be very low. CDC has investigated only one case of HIV infection that may be attributed to contact with blood during open-mouth kissing."

Wow, that seems really really like way too much time. I wonder what kind of witness he made and if he had any prior history of criminal behavior that came out to the jury. I wonder what the sentence ranges were and what the definition of a "deadly weapon" is in Texas.

biancamarisa: I don't know if it really is too much time or not, but I'm fairly certain that were this to have happened to someone other than a cop then it would have been less time.

If a community wants to decide that spitting with the potential for fatal results (even incredibly minuscule potential) is worth 35 years then ok, that's kind of how the US works to. It's why federal and state are two different entities. But the fact that we have special laws protecting cops bothers this shit out of me.

If someone stabs me, it should make no difference that I'm not a cop. I'm a person, stabbing me hurts the same as stabbing a cop.

p.s.: Admittedly I really dislike people who drink themselves stupid as well as people who spit. So the 35 year sentence bothers me not in the least.

His saliva is a dangerous weapon? What is he, part cobra?

LogrusZed-I am not ok that a "community" (read: Texas legislators, mostly hetero, white, and male)thinks spitting with the miniscule potential to cause fatal results gets 35 years is ok unless the laws are written so there must be facts that were sooo extreme as to warrant such a sentence (checkered criminal history, there was evidence of intention to infect, etc.). That's why I was wondering about the answers to my stated questions. And yes, I get the whole fed/state dichotomy. I get that "communities" can decide who gets what when. But I can still wonder about what facts the jury thought qualified this guy for 35 year sentence.

According to the NY Times he does have an extensive criminal history and that most of the 35 year sentence is the result of a habitual offender statute as opposed to the deadly weapon charges. The deadly weapons charges make him ineligible for parole until he has served at least half his sentence. He was given a minimum of 25 year sentence because he's committed similar crimes at least 12 times prior to this. 35 years seems pretty excessive and from reading the article it sounds like this man need psychiatric help much more than a long prison sentence.

Logrus, I just can't agree. Unless there are some enormous factors we don't know about in this case, getting drunk and spitting on a cop couldn't be worth 35 years, it's entirely disproportionate to the crime. The chances of contraction in this case are statistically indistinguishable from zero. In saying that you're okay with the sentence and that offenses against officers shouldn't carry different penalties than those against regular citizens, would you think it fair for him to have gotten 35 years for spitting on you personally? A penalty that severe is tantamount to a police state to me.

I also have to take exception to your stabbing example. Assaulting an officer carries a heavier penalty because it's necessary as an incentive. Police already volunteer for a dangerous job for relatively little financial compensation. Providing extra legal protection for them mitigates some of the danger they assume makes enough people willing to take the job by making it very costly for a person to assault them. They still face a greater danger than normal citizens on a day to day basis, this policy only cuts down some of it. There is potential for abuse with this policy in that it confers a greater amount of power to them, which I'm sure is what you're concerned with, but we just wouldn't have enough police without it.

I'll have to admit, I didn't know saliva from people who're HIV-positive was safe. Thanks for enlightening me.

�According to the NY Times he does have an extensive criminal history and that most of the 35 year sentence is the result of a habitual offender statute as opposed to the deadly weapon charges.� – e

That certainly changes things.

I don't think the sentence is as much of an issue here as the jury finding that the saliva of someone who is HIV-positive is a "deadly weapon." Was the jury made up of Mike Huckabee and 11 of his closest buddies, or were these people just really ignorant?

identity:

Well my agreement with the sentence for spitting was more or less hyperbole, of course it (disregarding the criminal history) would be a crazy punishment for spitting, but with so many deserving objects of my sympathy I find it hard to muster for someone who is so gross.

As to the differing punishments regarding police vs civilians, I see where you're coming from but while I respect the logic of your stance in regards to having to ensure that people will be willing to actually be cops, I just can't agree with any justice system that creates or embraces a class-based punishment system regardless of circumstance.

How about convenience store workers? They face disproportionate risk of physical injury due to robbery and are certainly paid less than cops, why not have some kicker on par with the increased risk relating to occupational hazards for them; or for that matter all the shitty unrewarding and dangerous jobs people do?

Damn, I had a long, thought out comment and it decided not to post...rain check.

We actually studied two cases like this in my crim law class. One case predated HIV, one didn't. Both were found guilty not because the jury believed that HIV-positive saliva was a deadly weapon, but because the spitter did. (One of them wasn't even HIV positive, but represented himself as such.)

We actually studied two cases like this in my crim law class. One case predated HIV, one didn't. Both were found guilty not because the jury believed that HIV-positive saliva was a deadly weapon, but because the spitter did. (One of them wasn't even HIV positive, but represented himself as such.)

Wha??? Did the person claim they were HIV-positive when they really weren't and spit on someone, causing emotional distress, out-of-pocket expenses, and possible lost wages for getting one or two tests done? That's still a bit of a stretch, but any prosecutor would argue that and I can kind of see the point. Or was that case similar to the one Jessica posted about, and the jury ruled that the person's saliva was a deadly weapon, simply because the person said they were HIV-positive? I know that makes no sense, but I guess it's still a possibility considering the state our society is in.

Judge in Canada orders HIV-positive prisoner to wear a gas mask and rubber gloves in court because "the HIV virus can lay dormant for years and years and only needs water to reactivate it" = WRONG. WRONG scientifically and WRONG morally.

HIV-positive prisoner spits in guard's eye and mouth = WRONG! WRONG WRONG WRONG! Definitely WRONG morally. I can't say what the scientific odds of transmission from this incident actually were, though there certainly exists a theoretical possibility with regard to both the eye and the mouth as entry points.

But the point is, whether HIV was transmitted or not, the individual who SPAT clearly THOUGHT it could be.

So yeah, 35 years? Not long enough.

I live in Texas, and some of the local coverage stressed that he has a long documented history of biting and spitting on other inmates and jail officers and basically anyone he can get in contact with with the intent of infecting them with HIV. [whether his methods are less effective than others is I guess not the point].

if the spitter was suffering from bleeding gums, or any other kind of tooth or mouth disease (including a bitten tongue) that would have allowed blood to mix with his saliva, he would indeed be capable of transmitting HIV to his target -- especially if the officer had any kind of open wounds in the neighborhood of his eye, or on his hands, or any other part of his body the saliva may have been able to travel to. that fact, coupled with his intent, would make him guilty of using a deadly weapon, IMO. that's why you don't share toothbrushes (and razors) with people who have HIV and similar diseases, such as Hepatitis C.