|
Associated Press – May 15, 2008:
|
|
|
0
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
35 years for harassing a public servant?
YES.
Public servants are YOUR OVERLORD.
BOW DOWN TO YOUR MASTER.
LICK MY BOOTS CITIZEN.
– Your friend Josef S.
Cops lie.
They get angry and lie. Were there any witnesses or are they sending this guy to jail for 35 years based on the testimony of an angry cop?
Was there saliva on his uniform?
Did he get HIV tested?
And how does someone spit in your eyes and mouth?
I believe the guy probably spit on the officers uniform and this enraged him.
And the officer never got tested for HIV this would also indicate he made up the eyes and mouth part.
No saliva on the uniform? Toss the case.
And finally, HIV cannot be transmitted by airborne spit, that’s just ignorance on the part of the cop, jury, and judge.
Intent? To infect the officer with HIV?
How about just wanting to spit on the officer?
How about the idea of infecting the officer never entered his mind?
How was it established his intent was to infect the officer?
ricland
#30 – “Actually, Michael, the jury found the man guilty of INTENTIONALLY ”
Nope. The direct quote from the article is “a jury found that Willie Campbell used his saliva as a deadly weapon.” That in now way implies intent.
Michael, the guy was convicted of Harrassment of a Public Servant. Under Section 22.11 of the Texas Penal Code, a person commits an offense if the person , with the INTENT to harass or alarm the public servant, causes his saliva to contact the public servant.
The deadly weapon issue is an additional finding by the jury that affects ONLY parole eligibility. According to the dude’s lawyer (quoted in the NY Times today), he faced a MINIMUM of 25 years in prison because of his previous criminal history (it’s Texas’ version of a 3 strikes law. I looked it up.)
The jury could have found that the guy’s saliva infected with HIV is not a deadly weapon and nevertheless given him up to LIFE in prison! (The minimum was 25 the maximum was 99 years or life.) But don’t just take my word, read Sections 12.42(d) and 22.11 for yourself. Here’s a link:
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm
So at first blush, it looks like a guy got 35 years for spitting on a cop and you think, “WOW! that’s harsh!” But after really looking at the facts, you have a guy who is 42 years old who has spent his whole life committing crimes! His own lawyer says the guy had more than 2 dozen previous convictions! He has been HIV+ since 1994 and continues to bite and spit on people. Does it really matter whether you can transmit HIV that way? Is that really the issue? This isn’t about “tatooing” HIV patients, as someone said. It’s simply about locking a man up who has been a real pain in the ass for a very long time.
I hate to pick on you Michael, but don’t blindly believe everything you read in the media because I assure you those writers don’t take the time to read the law before they report the story! Perhaps you could take the time to know what the law says before you make assumptions and draw incorrect conclusions.