Don't Say Bill Frist Didn't Warn You About AIDS Saliva

Posted by Katie Halper

Looks like Dr. Senator Bill Frist wasn't a crazy homophobe after all, but a rational doctor when he bravely refused to rule out the possibility that sweat and tears transmitted HIV. Because, If sweat, tears and saliva couldn't transmit the virus, why would an HIV positive man have been sentenced to 35 years in jail for spitting?

The answer to that question is "because the man was sentenced in TEXAS." This story would be so funny, if it weren't sad and true: An HIV-positive man convicted of spitting into the eye and mouth of a Dallas police officer has been sentenced to 35 years in prison because the jury found that Willie Campbell, 42, used his saliva as a deadly weapon. Of course, by Texan standards, this is a slap on the wrist. Plus, Campbell only has to serve half his sentence before becoming eligible for parole. So he'll be a spring 59-and-a-half-year-old chick when he gets out of jail.


+ DIGG + DEL.ICIO.US + REDDIT
Posted May 15 2008, 05:25 PM
Filed under: , , , , , , ,

Comments

tartlet said:

I imagine that if the HIV positive person had THOUGHT that his HIV could be transmitted through his saliva, then it could be argued that he intended to do harm when he spat.  If the other party also believed that they could contract HIV through spit, then I could see how that party could sustain psychological trauma as a result of being spat at.

However I find it unlikely that a person with HIV would be that ignorant about the disease, and I don't see why the HIV positive person should be blamed for ignorance-induced trauma sustained by the other party.  It's the same kind of offense as someone pointing a toy gun at another person and pulling the trigger.  And the penalty in the spit case would be equivalent to slapping the toy-gun-shooter with a murder conviction just because the person who was shot at thought the gun was real and loaded.

I also find it odd that a person would be given such a heavy sentence for doing something that didn't result in another person's death. Especially when the accused was drunk, and therefore not in complete control of his faculties.

The whole case sounds crazy.  I hope it's being appealed.

May 16, 2008 3:47 PM

in