Like said earlier, would you feel this way if it was a gun, and he tried shooting someone? Let's say he had shot someone in the chest, with the intent to kill, and their vest stopped the bullet. The person would be alive, in a lot of pain, but that pain would pass. True, theu would suffer for awhile, but they would eventually recover. This is no different.

I don't blame anyone after reading the original post for feeling it is "excessive". The story here is written to invoke a feeling of outrage that they convicted someone of assault w/ a deadly weapon + criminally harassing someone, and sentenced them to guidelines that are established and set by law. Pareene deliberately cherry picked her "facts" to support her argument from personal incredulity. Saying "everyone" knows something, then skipping past all the paragraphs that show a bodily fluid transfer can directly spread HIV, to pick the one sentence that supports your statements doesn't make it true, neither does popular belief. What's worse is the "fact" didn't fit the argument. "Contact" with saliva is different than having it applied directly and freshly to a mucous membrane. In the context of the CDC article, contact is meant to mean touching saliva or tears or sweat of someone on something like a hard surface, or during a handshake. She then used this fallacy to "prove" the punishment was excessive because it was not something she could understand, thus we all shouldn't.

@spectator101: If we took all the guns away, someone would come up with a board. Then a board with a nail in it. Then a even bigger board w/an even bigger nail.

Doesn't some coffee contain nut extracts? Would a person with an allergy have a reaction? Can a minor give consent to waive the liability D&D might be held to were a child//minor to have an allergic reaction? I think if the answer to 1&2 is yes, and the answer to three is no, then this is a good rule. Especially if it's the franchise owner responsible and not D&D. While they have deep pockets for a lawsuit, I'm sure a settlement would leave the franchise owner and all of his family out on the street.

And while don't know what current officers sign, I'm sure there is a form which says that they understand they may get shot. Does that mean the person who shots them shouldn't be charged, b/c the cop knew his risks?

Also, this person was found guilty by A JURY. 12 people who were presented with the facts and testimony and ALL aggreed about what the charge should be. This wasn't a case of putting yourself in the "cops shoe's", but applying the law to the facts of the case, and finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended harm to another human being using a weapon he knew to be fatal. The weapon was HIV/AIDS. Since there is no cure it is a deadly weapon. This is no different than shooting another person w/ the intent to kill them, and missing/grazing them. The intent was there, and a weapon was used to fulfill the intent. Now I know people will say that "it's only spit". But it's not. In the fights I have been in, blood was usually drawn from a punch to the face/mouth or a face hitting something. So there is a DAMN good chance there was blood in that saliva after resisting arrest. So the spit may have had blood in it. Spit w/blood in it is no different than a gun w/bullets. They both have a chance of killing someone, at least until a cure is found for HIV/AIDS.

This other person has also been/is being terrorized as they have to get tested for a disease of which, even though minuscule, there is a chance of contracting. This person now also has to think about anyone he may also infect were he to contract the disease and it not show up in testing.

All of these factors were weighed in the decision of the sentence. So you see, it doesn't matter to me that it was a cop. I would feel this way if he did this to you, your family, to anyone. Boil it down past emotions, outrage, prejudice, and this is a case of someone trying to kill someone else with a weapon, which however minuscule the chance is, could kill.

@Log1c: I just LOVE the use of the "medic" line in ST. Especially when Bronski gets his head blown off. Was he expecting the guy to put a bandaid on to keep the rest of the grey matter from falling out?
Rico:"Medic!"
Medic: "Ok, what do we have..OH MY GOD! Uhhh, just have him walk it off."

Well, as I pointed out above, the CDC disagrees with you. You should go back to your 3rd grade teacher and have them examine the CDC document linked to above. Given the PROVEN cases where it WAS transmitted. Now I know the CDC investigated cases are low, there are sure to be cases that they were never advised of, or the people involved believed they got it from another vector. I could say "if you're so sure, why don't you have someone who was just fighting with the police spit in your mouth and eyes", but I know you would dismiss that with your "common knowledge" that you can't get HIV through your mouth and eyes. What I will say is ask the six patients of the HIV infected doctor who got HIV from him if you can get it through your mouth. BTW, that fact is in the third paragraph of the CDC article linked to in the main post.

Really? All I did was point out why the person was charged the way he was, which seemed to elude the poster. I've also pointed out that they cherry picked quotes from the CDC article that supported their illogical stance, yet did not mention things which directly refuted what they "were taught years ago", such as;
1. "In the health care setting, workers have been infected with HIV after being stuck with needles containing HIV-infected blood or, less frequently, after infected blood gets into a worker's open cut or a mucous membrane (for example, the eyes or inside of the nose).
2.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.
3.There have been other reports in the medical literature in which HIV appeared to have been transmitted by a bite. Severe trauma with extensive tissue tearing and damage and presence of blood were reported in each of these instances. Biting is not a common way of transmitting HIV. In fact, there are numerous reports of bites that did not result in HIV infection.

Seems to me this shows that it IS possible, unlike getting pregnant from oral sex. It also shows that while he luckily didn't infect the officer, he has shown he wants to infect people, and uses the best means at his disposal. I think if anyone should examine their thinking, it's not me.

"He turns and spits," Officer Waller said. "He hits me in the eye and mouth. Then he told me he has AIDS. I immediately began looking for something to flush my eyes with."

Doesn't seem like the actions of someone who was being nice, or was just having "one" bad day. Seems to be a pattern. Would it ruin your day if someone who was HIV positive, knew it, had sex w/prostitutes to try and infect them, and got busted + charged?

TAKE ON MEEEE!! Only she never has crazy wrench fights or comes to the "real" world.

Figure out your body daily requirements for calories. Cut it by 500 calories. 500 calories a day x 7 days is 3500 calories, which = 1 lb of fat. 500 calories isn't that much. Besides, losing too much weight too fast is never healthy.

@LittleJon: No doubt. That's why I suggested the balloons. Cheap easy, possibly re-usable lift vehicle.

Oldest would be my 50 year old double edge safety razor, and my 60 year old sewing machine, which strangely, is also made of cast iron.

Now if YOU had read the article you said I didn't, in the 3rd paragraph it states: In the health care setting, workers have been infected with HIV after being stuck with needles containing HIV-infected blood or, less frequently, after infected blood gets into a worker's open cut or a mucous membrane (for example, the eyes or inside of the nose).
Saliva CAN carry blood, and the officers eyes WERE spit in, as well as the mouth. Most, except for you, know that. Glad I'm NOT in that company.

Now if he had MISSED the cop, then it would be "attempted", just like if your cigarette never lit the matches. But since he hit, it's not, just like if your cigarette caught the matches on fire, but only caused smoke damage to the home.

or just search Google news for "Willie Campbell". The link still works for me.

Also, many states (NJ for one) have laws in place which pertain to bodily fluids being used against police and/or corrections officers.

@moff: Here's a larger story than the AP.

Sprint: That creepy trench coat guy.