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.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
Sec. 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;
So it's quite the stretch to claim spitting on an officer while in custody in their vehicle is an offense under 22:11. This law definitely needs to be fixed.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member
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.
This now makes sense to me. Note how he wrote "once we enter the jail". So nightmare69 is well aware that he cannot charge someone for spitting on him at the scene or in his vehicle, because he knows what the law says. (And kudos to you for knowing the law.)
The woman in the story was falsely charged and should be released. Her attorney should be charged with malpractice for not knowing the law and the police should be charged with false arrest.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member
Not arguing with you. However, I believe the level of the charge is elevated if done once inside the jail.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
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.
Excaliber
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Jeff Cooper
I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of my posts should be construed as legal or professional advice.
The amount of inmates who were HIV or Hep C postive was shocking. I wore safety glasses for this reason when around new inmates being booked in or those who have STDs
2/26-Mailed paper app and packet.
5/20-Plastic in hand.
83 days mailbox to mailbox.
Excaliber wrote: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.
A misdemeanor charge to a felon doing a prison sentence is not much of a deterrent.
Last edited by WildBill on Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
This now makes sense to me. Note how he wrote "once we enter the jail". So nightmare69 is well aware that he cannot charge someone for spitting on him at the scene or in his vehicle, because he knows what the law says. (And kudos to you for knowing the law.)
The woman in the story was falsely charged and should be released. Her attorney should be charged with malpractice for not knowing the law and the police should be charged with false arrest.
The way it's written you could be charged under the law anytime you spit on an LEO.
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 don't a felony sticking unless the subject knowingly has an STD.
2/26-Mailed paper app and packet.
5/20-Plastic in hand.
83 days mailbox to mailbox.
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.
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.
Charles,
Does it have to be a cop that is spit on to be a crime or is it criminal regardless the recipient?
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
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.
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.
Do you know if sentenced prisoners are given routine medical checks for HIV, hepatitis,TB etc. before being put into the general prison population?
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.
Do you know if sentenced prisoners are given routine medical checks for HIV, hepatitis,TB etc. before being put into the general prison population?
I know the get a TB test before going to TDC. I know TDC does its own medical tests upon intake.
2/26-Mailed paper app and packet.
5/20-Plastic in hand.
83 days mailbox to mailbox.
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.
but I also think the charge should be the same if the person spits on LEO or a non LEO. I don't think the charge should be increased because the guy being spit on has a badge.
Will the charged be increased if I get spit on while I am wearing a CHL badge?
“Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.”
― Horace Mann
