TexasCHLforum.com

Glockedandlocked wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Glockedandlocked wrote:I have written this charge for spitting using PC22.11, basically boils down to assault by contact - bodily fluids. The result was 6 year sentence to be ran stacked on top of the parole violation that caused the return to custody.

There are other charges that can be filed on the street level for officers, for citizens a simple assault charge would be appropriate.

It is considered felony level for us because it was done based on our position and often as retaliation for official acts.

It should not be limited to HIV positives, there are other things that people carry that are more immediately life threatening/debilitating than HIV.

How do you get away with it? The law specifically states the offense must occur in jail.

or
(2) causes another person the actor knows to be a public servant to contact the blood, seminal fluid, vaginal fluid, saliva, urine, or feces of the actor, any other person, or an animal while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of the public servant's official power or performance of an official duty.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

I may be wrong but I think the conversation has moved on to someone spitting on a noncop and being charged for assault.

I am looking for a specific charge that would be appropriate for the citizen assaulted by spit or other fluids, will post if I come up with something that would stick.

nightmare69 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Glockedandlocked wrote:I have written this charge for spitting using PC22.11, basically boils down to assault by contact - bodily fluids. The result was 6 year sentence to be ran stacked on top of the parole violation that caused the return to custody.

There are other charges that can be filed on the street level for officers, for citizens a simple assault charge would be appropriate.

It is considered felony level for us because it was done based on our position and often as retaliation for official acts.

It should not be limited to HIV positives, there are other things that people carry that are more immediately life threatening/debilitating than HIV.

How do you get away with it? The law specifically states the offense must occur in jail.

or
(2) causes another person the actor knows to be a public servant to contact the blood, seminal fluid, vaginal fluid, saliva, urine, or feces of the actor, any other person, or an animal while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of the public servant's official power or performance of an official duty.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Not sure if this applies in Texas or not. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-ch ... rview.html

I have no idea about the level or degree of crime.


Somebody found it.
http://www.brettsanders.me/2015/05/texa ... -on-a-cop/

Have you read this? She was drunk in her own home and they arrested her for public drunkenness. That sets of HUGE alarm bells in my head. How can you be publicly drunk in your own home?

I was obviously wrong about spitting not being an offense. I searched for spit but never thought of saliva. (Still haven't learned to think like a lawyer.)

My argument in this particular instance would be that since her arrest was false, everything subsequent to that is fruit of the poisonous tree. The officers should have been charged with false arrest. Just because someone behaves like a pig does not justify looking for something to charge them with so you can get your revenge. Officers are supposed to be arresting people for crimes, not looking for things to arrest them for.

I only used that story to illustrate the fact one can be charged for spitting on someone. I have no interest in the other circumstances of the case and have no interest in arguing over them. The point I was making at the time was to point out you were in error in your conclusions regarding the criminality of spitting on someone and stating emphatically you would not convict someone for doing it because it's not in the law.

I wasn't aware the case I linked to was being debated in this thread.

Let me be very clear. I will NOT vote guilty in a jury trial to convict someone of spitting on an officer when the punishment is a felony. It's beyond ridiculous.

Hopefully that clarifies my position.

Gotcha. That helps because that was not the basis for your position originally but I agree it being a felony is ridiculous.

However, I'm not sure it's a felony if it's just one of us regular folks that is the recipient of the spit in all cases.

If I recall correctly it was classified as a felony because it was intended to deter HIV positive inmates from trying to infect corrections officers by projecting feces and bodily fluids onto them.

I could get felony level excited over that.

I agree, but the law should have been written that way. Someone with HIV spitting on someone else is assault with a deadly weapon as far as I'm concerned.

Absent an HIV diagnosis, it should be a simple assault.
Chas.

baldeagle wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Not sure if this applies in Texas or not. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-ch ... rview.html

I have no idea about the level or degree of crime.


Somebody found it.
http://www.brettsanders.me/2015/05/texa ... -on-a-cop/

Have you read this? She was drunk in her own home and they arrested her for public drunkenness. That sets of HUGE alarm bells in my head. How can you be publicly drunk in your own home?

I was obviously wrong about spitting not being an offense. I searched for spit but never thought of saliva. (Still haven't learned to think like a lawyer.)

My argument in this particular instance would be that since her arrest was false, everything subsequent to that is fruit of the poisonous tree. The officers should have been charged with false arrest. Just because someone behaves like a pig does not justify looking for something to charge them with so you can get your revenge. Officers are supposed to be arresting people for crimes, not looking for things to arrest them for.

I only used that story to illustrate the fact one can be charged for spitting on someone. I have no interest in the other circumstances of the case and have no interest in arguing over them. The point I was making at the time was to point out you were in error in your conclusions regarding the criminality of spitting on someone and stating emphatically you would not convict someone for doing it because it's not in the law.

I wasn't aware the case I linked to was being debated in this thread.

Let me be very clear. I will NOT vote guilty in a jury trial to convict someone of spitting on an officer when the punishment is a felony. It's beyond ridiculous.

Hopefully that clarifies my position.

baldeagle wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Not sure if this applies in Texas or not. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-ch ... rview.html

I have no idea about the level or degree of crime.


Somebody found it.
http://www.brettsanders.me/2015/05/texa ... -on-a-cop/

Have you read this? She was drunk in her own home and they arrested her for public drunkenness. That sets of HUGE alarm bells in my head. How can you be publicly drunk in your own home?

I was obviously wrong about spitting not being an offense. I searched for spit but never thought of saliva. (Still haven't learned to think like a lawyer.)

My argument in this particular instance would be that since her arrest was false, everything subsequent to that is fruit of the poisonous tree. The officers should have been charged with false arrest. Just because someone behaves like a pig does not justify looking for something to charge them with so you can get your revenge. Officers are supposed to be arresting people for crimes, not looking for things to arrest them for.