Search found 2 matches
Return to “Police Group Upset Over DPS Director's "Spit" Comment”
- by Charles L. Cotton
- Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:22 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Police Group Upset Over DPS Director's "Spit" Comment
- Replies: 44
- Views: 7830
Excaliber wrote:mojo84 wrote:baldeagle wrote:mojo84 wrote:baldeagle wrote:
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.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/639f0/639f0ab8dd62fe717e4f6a6491809a5a78e7b53c" alt="headscratch :headscratch"
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.
- by Charles L. Cotton
- Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:47 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Police Group Upset Over DPS Director's "Spit" Comment
- Replies: 44
- Views: 7830
nightmare69 wrote:baldeagle wrote:nightmare69 wrote:If they are going to spit on me I would rather them do it once we enter the jail so I can add a F/3 to their charge list. This all falls under TPC: 22.11. Enjoy your 2-10 in TDC.
I kind of doubt it. TCP 22:11 addresses assaultive offenses that involve physical contact. I think it would be a stretch to make that charge stick for spitting.
Back when I was in the Navy, anti-war protestors spit on the police (military and civilian routinely. It got so bad that an anti-war US Congressman publicly begged anti-war protestors to stop the spitting. (I can document all of this, but I don't think it's appropriate to do so here. PM me if you doubt what I say.) National Guard troops received training where instructors would spit on them, and they were trained not to react.
As a police officer you should be aware that some of the people you interact with are not going to act rationally or decently. It's your job to remain professional throughout and complete your work (arrest, interview, etc.) without getting emotional based on the suspect's behavior. They are not reacting to you. They are reacting to being encountered by law enforcement. To protect and SERVE is supposed to mean just that.
Section 22.11: HARASSMENT BY PERSONS IN CERTAIN CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; HARASSMENT OF PUBLIC SERVANT - a) A person commits an offense if, with the intent to assault, harass, or alarm, the person:
(1) while imprisoned or confined in a correctional or detention facility, causes another person to contact the blood, seminal fluid, vaginal fluid, saliva, urine, or feces of the actor, any other person, or an animal; 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.
You are correct about it being a felony, but it's absurd. A felony for spitting on someone is something that King George would have loved. It's the kind of law that offends the public.
Chas.