Page 2 of 3
Re: Police Group Upset Over DPS Director's "Spit" Comment
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:04 pm
by mojo84
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.

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.
Re: Police Group Upset Over DPS Director's "Spit" Comment
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:12 pm
by baldeagle
I just reread that section:
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.
Re: Police Group Upset Over DPS Director's "Spit" Comment
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:16 pm
by baldeagle
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.
Re: Police Group Upset Over DPS Director's "Spit" Comment
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:24 pm
by mojo84
Not arguing with you. However, I believe the level of the charge is elevated if done once inside the jail.
Re: Police Group Upset Over DPS Director's "Spit" Comment
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:50 pm
by Excaliber
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.

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.
Re: Police Group Upset Over DPS Director's "Spit" Comment
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 2:25 pm
by Abraham
Excaliber,
I completely agree.
As it turns out, there are more than you'd suspect carrying HIV.
A few years back, an acquaintance admitted to me he was HIV positive.
I was startingly surprised.
You just never know who is or isn't and it doesn't have to be HIV, it could Hep C or some other awful....
Re: Police Group Upset Over DPS Director's "Spit" Comment
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:07 pm
by nightmare69
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
Re: Police Group Upset Over DPS Director's "Spit" Comment
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:20 pm
by WildBill
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.

Re: Police Group Upset Over DPS Director's "Spit" Comment
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:20 pm
by nightmare69
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.
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.
Re: Police Group Upset Over DPS Director's "Spit" Comment
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:22 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
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.

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.
Re: Police Group Upset Over DPS Director's "Spit" Comment
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:27 pm
by mojo84
Charles L. Cotton wrote: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.

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?
Re: Police Group Upset Over DPS Director's "Spit" Comment
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:42 pm
by Glockedandlocked
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.
Re: Police Group Upset Over DPS Director's "Spit" Comment
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:01 pm
by WildBill
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?
Re: Police Group Upset Over DPS Director's "Spit" Comment
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:34 pm
by nightmare69
WildBill 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.
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.
Re: Police Group Upset Over DPS Director's "Spit" Comment
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 7:38 pm
by Javier730
Charles L. Cotton wrote: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.

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?
