Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
HIV as a weapon - 1911Forum
Does anyone know of any account of deadly force being used against an attacker because the attacker threatened to infect the person with HIV/Aids?
It got on my brain after last night we arrested a Hepatitis and Aids positive subject.
He had claimed to have attempted suicide, and I sent him to the hospital twice.
He left each time because he didn't want to wait, and went home to attempt to kill himself again.
Well he ended up getting arrested for disorderly conduct in the ER.
During the whole thing he threatened to make us shoot him.
He didn't threat to infect us (though he did puke in the back seat of the car several times...fun).
However another Officer was hired on an extra job last year at a business.
The business had fired an employee for some reason.
The employee had called saying that he was HIV positive, and that he was going to come to the workplace, cut himself, and sling blood on everybody.
So I'm wondering, for police, and a citizen, would you consider that a deadly force assault?
I do.
As an Officer if the guy was trying to bite me or put his hands on me, I'd go for the taser, but if the taser fails as it very well might, that leaves you with risking your health by putting hands on him, or shooting him.
Now I know you can't go shooting people because they are being put under arrest and have hiv, but if they are actively trying to infect you, that is a different matter.
I think it would certainly be an interesting case if it hasn't already happened yet.
This guy we arrested has been in prison for some time, and a family member recently died.
That put him over the edge to the point that it's unknown what he may do.
He's generally unstable without added stimulus.
It won't take him long to figure out that he doesn't have the guts to kill himself, he could try to get us to shoot him (as he flat out said).
Thoughts?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Does anyone know of any account of deadly force being used against an attacker because the attacker threatened to infect the person with HIV/Aids?
It got on my brain after last night we arrested a Hepatitis and Aids positive subject.
He had claimed to have attempted suicide, and I sent him to the hospital twice.
He left each time because he didn't want to wait, and went home to attempt to kill himself again.
Well he ended up getting arrested for disorderly conduct in the ER.
During the whole thing he threatened to make us shoot him.
He didn't threat to infect us (though he did puke in the back seat of the car several times...fun).
However another Officer was hired on an extra job last year at a business.
The business had fired an employee for some reason.
The employee had called saying that he was HIV positive, and that he was going to come to the workplace, cut himself, and sling blood on everybody.
So I'm wondering, for police, and a citizen, would you consider that a deadly force assault?
I do.
As an Officer if the guy was trying to bite me or put his hands on me, I'd go for the taser, but if the taser fails as it very well might, that leaves you with risking your health by putting hands on him, or shooting him.
Now I know you can't go shooting people because they are being put under arrest and have hiv, but if they are actively trying to infect you, that is a different matter.
I think it would certainly be an interesting case if it hasn't already happened yet.
This guy we arrested has been in prison for some time, and a family member recently died.
That put him over the edge to the point that it's unknown what he may do.
He's generally unstable without added stimulus.
It won't take him long to figure out that he doesn't have the guts to kill himself, he could try to get us to shoot him (as he flat out said).
Thoughts?
Sure sounds like a felonious assault to me.
Attempt to do great-bodily harm....you name it.
If he's trying to end your life (even if it's not an immediate death) I would say an officer has the right to use deadly force and I for one believe you would be justified.
I also think somebody doing that should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A lot would depend on the laws of the state you are in.
I was lucky to retire before AIDS became as widespread as it is today.
If I were working today I would be concerned about searching a prisoner and getting stuck with a needle, or getting involved at a motor vehicle accident, or fight with a lot of blood
By the way I hear the COs corrections officers have to deal with having body fluids thrown at them, it is called gassing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Does anyone know of any account of deadly force being used against an attacker because the attacker threatened to infect the person with HIV/Aids?
It got on my brain after last night we arrested a Hepatitis and Aids positive subject.
He had claimed to have attempted suicide, and I sent him to the hospital twice.
He left each time because he didn't want to wait, and went home to attempt to kill himself again.
Well he ended up getting arrested for disorderly conduct in the ER.
During the whole thing he threatened to make us shoot him.
He didn't threat to infect us (though he did puke in the back seat of the car several times...fun).
However another Officer was hired on an extra job last year at a business.
The business had fired an employee for some reason.
The employee had called saying that he was HIV positive, and that he was going to come to the workplace, cut himself, and sling blood on everybody.
So I'm wondering, for police, and a citizen, would you consider that a deadly force assault?
I do.
As an Officer if the guy was trying to bite me or put his hands on me, I'd go for the taser, but if the taser fails as it very well might, that leaves you with risking your health by putting hands on him, or shooting him.
Now I know you can't go shooting people because they are being put under arrest and have hiv, but if they are actively trying to infect you, that is a different matter.
I think it would certainly be an interesting case if it hasn't already happened yet.
This guy we arrested has been in prison for some time, and a family member recently died.
That put him over the edge to the point that it's unknown what he may do.
He's generally unstable without added stimulus.
It won't take him long to figure out that he doesn't have the guts to kill himself, he could try to get us to shoot him (as he flat out said).
Thoughts?
I think that decision should be made by the particular police officer at the scene.
Outsiders should not have a say in this matter.
That is what a police officer is for, IMHO.
I think officers would respond differently to that situation, because we are human.
It sounds like this person had/has a death wish or wants (attention) and thought;
Running their mouth and trying to provoke the PD would be a sure way of getting killed or taken into custody.
Or, running their mouth at a hospital would somehow force a police officer to use deadly force.
An HIV positive individual should have the same rights as any other citizen.
To me this hypothetical situation is similar: what if an undiagnosed person threatened to do the same thing, but no one is sure if they have a deadly virus etc..
How should that situation be handled?
However, this person tried to have the upperhand by using their virus as a ploy(tactic).
Hats off to you Masterfulks, as it seems you are hesitant to use deadly force in that situation.
Only you are allowed to make that choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deadly force is always going to be situational.
I'm just curious if it's ever happened.
True that someone might claim to have hiv and use that to make you fear them.
If they do and express intent to infect you, then perhaps deadly force is the best way to ensure your safety.
It is a personal decision, but that decision be reviewed by many others and picked apart.
Then you have to go to the grand jury and possibly explain yourself.
It's sort of a tricky one that is a little more thought provoking than the basic guy with the gun trying to shoot you.
After thinking about it, if the person was extreme like the guy who said he'd throw blood on you to give you aids, actually went to throwing, I think I'd shoot if I had no means of escape.
I'd certainly use distance and put obstacles between us if possible, until other units with more tasers and bean guns were available.
However if the guy is full on charging me I guess there's no real way to get out of there.
I can't exactly get in my patrol car in leave.
Well I could, but that's not exactly what the cops should be doing.
I hate dealing with these kinds of people.
A little bit of blood on you during a fight, and you could be given a death sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : I think that decision should be made by the particular police officer at the scene.
Outsiders should not have a say in this matter.
That is what a police officer is for, IMHO.
I think officers would respond differently to that situation, because we are human.
It sounds like this person had/has a death wish or wants (attention) and thought;
Running their mouth and trying to provoke the PD would be a sure way of getting killed or taken into custody.
Or, running their mouth at a hospital would somehow force a police officer to use deadly force.
An HIV positive individual should have the same rights as any other citizen.
To me this hypothetical situation is similar: what if an undiagnosed person threatened to do the same thing, but no one is sure if they have a deadly virus etc..
How should that situation be handled?
However, this person tried to have the upperhand by using their virus as a ploy(tactic).
Hats off to you Masterfulks, as it seems you are hesitant to use deadly force in that situation.
Only you are allowed to make that choice.
What sucks is outsiders do have a say.
They'll end up on the jury.
I'm not out to find an excuse to shoot someone, mostly I can come to a pretty clear decision on what constitutes deadly force and what doesn't.
This one is a little gray, but perhaps not once I think about it.
Thank you for the support.
As far as an unconfirmed virus, but a threat being made.
I think I could articulate that if a subject threatens me with hiv and shows intent to infect me, that I have every reason to believe and act as if he does have it.
Sort of like if he points what may or may not be a loaded gun at me.
If I wait to find out I could end up dead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because it is very difficult to transfer the HIV virus through blood contact, it will probably be very hard to prove that deadly force is necessary.
It needs to enter your body through your eyes, nose, mouth or through an open wound to be spread by contact.
If someone was threatening to infect someone with a needle of their blood or through a dirty needle it would probably be more black and white whether or not the shoot would be lawful.
But then again, all shoots are decided on the facts presented after the fact so if I was you, I would look into what the law specifically states or if there has been a previous precedent set before a court of law in or outside your jurisdiction.
I would look into the facts, not internet speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: :
I hate dealing with these kinds of people.
A little bit of blood on you during a fight, and you could be given a death sentence.
Do you mean HIV positive people who are junkies or HIV positive people in general?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Because it is very difficult to transfer the HIV virus through blood contact, it will probably be very hard to prove that deadly force is necessary.
It needs to enter your body through your eyes, nose, mouth or through an open wound to be spread by contact.
If someone was threatening to infect someone with a needle of their blood or through a dirty needle it would probably be more black and white whether or not the shoot would be lawful.
But then again, all shoots are decided on the facts presented after the fact so if I was you, I would look into what the law specifically states or if there has been a previous precedent set before a court of law in or outside your jurisdiction.
I would look into the facts, not internet speculation.
That's why I was trying to find some court cases if it has happened.
If they are cut and bleeding and they are attempting to fight you, I think there's a risk.
Now a needle would be much easier to justify.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Do you mean HIV positive people who are junkies or HIV positive people in general?
I don't enjoy dealing with either, but I'm referring to any hiv positive person that I have to put my hands on and arrest.
Especially resisting subjects.
I know it dies outside of the body pretty quickly, and you don't get it through just touching someone, but that's one of those things that I don't like to mess with.
Sort of like gun safety.
If you do screw up, the consequences are not pleasant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Body Substance Isolation.
The rule EMT's have drilled into their heads from day one.
Glove up, mask up if needed, ( if you have time!) and decon- clean after contact.
Doesn't help with dealing with the " beautiful people" any better, but does help to protect you from catching any of the diseases that they may or may not be carrying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Something else just occurred to me, in addition to the law applying to the use of deadly physical force there are probably department rules and procedures that need to be considered.
The bottom line is consider the legal aspects then take what ever action you need to do to keep yourself safe and get home to your family
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go to the CDC website.
As much as it is hard to deal with these people, it is just not that high a risk contracting HIV from casual contact let alone a needle puncture.
(.5% risk)
Yes it is theoretically possible but not probable
Hep B...that's a different story.
You get a needle scratch and there's a 50% chance you're going to contract the disease.
But is it a deadly threat?
I have been covered with HIV+ blood, spat on, puked on and shit on.
Fifteen years later I'm okay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think the attorney general will issue an opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. Articulate how you know at the time they are HIV+.
Hepatitis doesn't count.
Suicidal?
Do you have a Police Officer Hold for Mental Evaluation?
Take them into custody, medics transport and he must be seen by a MD.
Dis/Con is a waste of time and creates a problem for someone else.
Deadly force is going to be a hard sell.
Taser fails. Tactical retreat to mount up again in force, or remove yourself.
Bean-Bag in shotgun works well for an impact weapon and creates a safe distance.
Be clear and have a plan for this individual if the situation arises again.
Fazer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: :
So I'm wondering, for police, and a citizen, would you consider that a deadly force assault Don't know if this helps, but a deliberate, articulated attempt to infect someone with HIV is Assault 1st in the State of Washington.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : No. Articulate how you know at the time they are HIV+.
Hepatitis doesn't count.
Suicidal?
Do you have a Police Officer Hold for Mental Evaluation?
Take them into custody, medics transport and he must be seen by a MD.
Dis/Con is a waste of time and creates a problem for someone else.
Deadly force is going to be a hard sell.
Taser fails. Tactical retreat to mount up again in force, or remove yourself.
Bean-Bag in shotgun works well for an impact weapon and creates a safe distance.
Be clear and have a plan for this individual if the situation arises again.
Fazer We don't have a means to hold for mental eval.
That would be great if we did.
All we can do is talk someone in to going to the local mental hospital for evaluation, and they can refuse.
I've tried several times to get the paramedics and/or hospital staff to strap people in for treatment or sedate them, but that's a rare thing, and risk of suicide doesn't qualify.
I tried to get this guy admitted against his will, but no dice.
He walked out of the hospital twice within maybe 2 hours.
I can understand that for some degree, but all it does is force us to arrest when what they really need is some form of mental care.
I think if the person tells you they have HIV then you can articulate that.
There's no real reason to doubt them.
Especially this person who we were told by the medics he has it as they've dealt with him before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Don't know if this helps, but a deliberate, articulated attempt to infect someone with HIV is Assault 1st in the State of Washington.
Interesting, the best I've found so far here in Alabama would be Reckless Endangerment.
It's not listed under assault at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well that all depends on whether you'd rather have AIDS or have the risk of going to prison.
I think the jury would back you up considering most people would've "incapacitated" the aggressor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the person has articulated the fact that they are HIV positive, or have AIDS, and intends to bite you, they are making what is normally considered a lethal threat.
The fact that they are HIV positive, or have ARC, or AIDS, is not something that threatens, in and of itself.
However, the threat to infect you passes beyond acceptable behavior.
While some of us may not feel that Hepatitis is the same, please be advised that they have identified several other strains besides Hep A&B.
Hep C is getting fairly "common", is quite virulent, and the treatment is long, and spotty as far as success goes.
There are also several strains that have zero cure.
While it's nice to think that someone may not present a lethal threat with Hepatitis, it's not very smart.
I can remember reading of several court cases involving rape, where the male was infected, and, in at least one case, the female became infected.
They were trying him for murder, as he knew he had HIV.
What I don't remember is the outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not against the law to be crazy.
How does your state deal with a mental subject that is a threat to themself or others?
Check for a Physician's hold.
Crazy people can't be expected to make good decisions.
LE must step in and make that call before someone is hurt.
They need medical assistance not a cell.
The person should not be allowed to commit a crime before police can act.
I'm thinking of the liability if no action is taken, the subject goes on a violent crime spree.
How do you handle the teenager that cuts her wrists?
Just throwing it out there...
Nut Jobs are never easy to deal with.
Most add alcohol with their medication then stop taking the meds.
Now that leaves ya with a drunk paranoid delusional.
Google: AIDS as a weapon.
A Canadian court found a Uganda man guilty of infecting several women.
Fazer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : It's not against the law to be crazy.
How does your state deal with a mental subject that is a threat to themself or others?
Check for a Physician's hold.
Crazy people can't be expected to make good decisions.
LE must step in and make that call before someone is hurt.
They need medical assistance not a cell.
The person should not be allowed to commit a crime before police can act.
I'm thinking of the liability if no action is taken, the subject goes on a violent crime spree.
How do you handle the teenager that cuts her wrists?
Just throwing it out there...
Nut Jobs are never easy to deal with.
Most add alcohol with their medication then stop taking the meds.
Now that leaves ya with a drunk paranoid delusional.
Google: AIDS as a weapon.
A Canadian court found a Uganda man guilty of infecting several women.
Fazer We don't have a way to hold them if they are crazy.
If they don't volunteer to go to a hospital we can't make them.
If they are a teen the parent can force it.
So basically yeah, we can only remove them from the streets via arrest if they refuse treatment.
If they are drunk, then public intoxication would be the charge.
A hospital doesn't want to deal with a drunk for the most part anyway.
They can sober up in a cell and then get treatment if they need it.
I'm going to have to check on getting people probated/committed.
I know there is a process for family members to do it, and a judge can force the evaluation.
Nobody has told me that an Officer on the street can do it on the fly.
You have to go down to the courthouse during business hours and fill out paperwork.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they verbally threaten an officer, while unarmed, saying that they will infect others, then I don't think its ethically sound to shoot the person.
I would just think that its good to give them one hell of a beating (with the baton of course - not your bare hands).
If they have a knife or needle in their hand that would be a different story.
(Regardless of whether they mention HIV or not, they should be shot).
Even if they threatened to bite someone, the disease (HIV) cannot be spread through saliva.
I would just use my gun taser
I totally agree concerning Hep C.
Most Surgeons/dentists or other health care workers would take a patient hands down with HIV over a patient with Hep C - its FAR MORE infectious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Even if they threatened to bite someone, the disease (HIV) cannot be spread through saliva Quote: : It is very unlikely that a person would get HIV from a human bite.
HIV can only be passed in this manner through direct blood-to-blood contact and not by exchanging saliva.
To pass the virus, the infected person would need to have blood in his or her mouth and break the skin of the other person.
The break in the skin of the uninfected person could allow infected blood to enter his or her bloodstream.
If a person who does not have HIV bites and breaks the skin of a person with HIV, transmission of the virus could only occur if the uninfected person has open sores or cuts in the mouth that allow for blood-to-blood contact.
If the HIV infected person bit his tongue, cheek, or lip prior to, or during the scuffle, or had a bloody nose, you're "it".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here in VA, spitting on a person is considered assault.
I had a student two years ago spit on me, he could have been arrested.
If convicted, that kid would have had a felony rap to contend with.
It was my choice, I gave the kid another chance, I certainly did enough stupid stuff as a kid.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|