Man gets life in prison for spitting

[2dogs]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Southwest/07/02/crime.spit.reut/index.html

Man gets life in prison for spitting

Wednesday, July 2, 2003 Posted: 3:16 PM EDT (1916 GMT)



OKLAHOMA CITY (Reuters) -- An Oklahoma man arrested on suspicion of beating his wife faced year in prison and a fine. But when he spit in an arresting officer's face, he got a life sentence instead, officials said Wednesday.

John Carl Marquez, 36, was convicted of "placing bodily fluid upon a government employee," a felony that can carry a life sentence because of the possibility of transmitting a potentially deadly disease.

State judge April Sellers White sentenced Marquez this week even though Marquez and the officer tested negative for any communicable disease.

Marquez also was convicted of assaulting a police officer, and a jury recommended the maximum sentence because he had previous convictions.

Marquez, arrested several months ago, could have received one year in prison and a $3,000 fine for wife beating, according to the Creek County court clerk's office.

His lawyers said they plan to appeal.

 

[cameroneod]

You have GOT to be kidding. Granted the guy is a dumb ??? for spitting in the cops face, but that sentance is the definition of "cruel and unusual."

 

[Ebbtide]

And to think I thought 2dogs was being sensational with his topic line.

 

[Tamara]

This is the very definition of ridiculous. What message are they trying to send? "Don't spit on the king's men"? Laws like this wind up being nothing but big, dumb bundles of unintended consequences...

 

[4v50 Gary]

Dunno 'bout everyone else, but bodily fluids can contain HIV and if the victim has an open wound, it could result in a death sentence for the victim. I can see the reasoning of the lawmakers, but perhaps it can moderated with a mandatory HIV test of the aggressor with results (nevermind the patient-doctor privilege) shared with the victim.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Gary,

Yes, definitely the case, but I have SERIOUS problems about someone drawing a life sentence for this when he's not ill.

I really hope the guy appeals and wins.

Prior to the AIDS epidemic, I believe several people spit on police officers and got off on First Amendment grounds...

 

[Tamara]

4V50Gary,

Yes, and before AIDS, saliva could have contained TB or other diseases.

However, if Mr. Marquez did not have any contagious diseases, then he was merely expressing both his distaste with the situation and his shocking lack of good breeding. Neither of these are imprisonable offenses, much less equivalent to assault with intent to kill.

 

[Jeff White]

I don't know what the Oklahoma law says, but most statutes I've seen make it a felony if the offender knowingly attempts to transmit a disease by spitting or other speading of bodily fluids.

I'm going to withhold judgement until some more details are out. I don't think the law provides for a mandatory life sentence. So let's find out what other things factored into the judge giving him a life sentence.

Jeff

 

[Graystar]

We punish people for what they have done....not for what they could have done. If he didn't infect the officer then he doesn't deserve such a sentence. Hopefully the appeals court will recognize this.

 

[DontShootMe]

See?

Just watch and see - soon there will be so many ways to commit 'felonies' that RKBA will be a moot point. We'll all just be a bunch of felons.

And of course, felons cant possess (or even be near) firearms.

Glimpse of 2015:

Purchase/Possess JHP's ??? = Felony
25 mph over speed limit = Felony
Use firearm for SD without being shot first = Felony
Speak against the current administration = Felony
Fail to pay IRS on time = Felony
Chop a tree down in the forest = Felony
Spit on a gubmint employee = Felony

 

[4v50 Gary]

Don't disagree with you Tamara & Mike & others regarding the sentencing. That's why I would include something to moderate it and that something being the mandatory testing for HIV. BTW, testing should be conducted for the victim too to establish a "base-line" for future tests in case HIV does develop.

This raises another issue. Say the suspect was HIV and said suspect spats on the victim with intent of infecting the victim. Say victim, unknown to suspect, is already HIV positive? What then? I would go for life b/c of intent can be established.

Turning to the case of our officer involved here, it's a battery and should be treated as such (with perhaps some enhancement for the mental distress).

 

[DontShootMe]

We punish people for what they have done....not for what they could have done.

Care to comment on DUI checkpoints?

 

[mjydrafter]

And of course, felons cant possess (or even be near) firearms.

Add in selected misdemeanors as well (see '96 lautenburg act). Spouses of those convicted of certain misdemeanors can't even have firearms in thier residence, just like the rules for felonies. Unconstitutional BS. I won't start in on the ex post facto factor.

If this guy does turn out to be clean (HIV/AIDS), how will they justify the extended sentence?

If this is a mandatory minium thing, it's a sad state of affairs, for those on the judiciary can't impose justifiable justice.

 

[spacemanspiff]

sooooo, can i draw on the guy whos mad at me and hocking up a big loogie?

"i swear officer, my life flashed before my eyes when i saw him snorting that spitball. i was in fear for my life! i had to defend myself with 9 rounds of .45, it was him or me!"

 

[2dogs]

hocking up a big loogie

The dreaded "assault loogie"- must be banned!

 

[TheeBadOne]

Don't disagree with you Tamara & Mike & others regarding the sentencing. That's why I would include something to moderate it and that something being the mandatory testing for HIV

There in lies the rub. You cannot force someone to give you their medical records or submit to a test. This has been a problem even in rape/aslt cases. Some states are passing or trying to pass laws on this, but it doesn't cover Police Officers (who get bit, spit on , stuck with needles, or bled on). That is the reason for the courts punishing that type of conduct. The Cop cannot get peace of mind by having the perp tested or having his medical records looked at. Private information is held above all.

 

[Sheslinger]

God forbid we punish rapists and murderers in the "crual and unusual manner" instead...

Sheslinger

 

[Sheslinger]

And what if he has some disease he is unaware of? How would anyone prove that he knowingly tried to harm the officer?

 

[TheeBadOne]

I think the point is now days, compaired to past days, we are aware of the risks/dangers posed by bodily fluids. Now that the danger is known it is not tolerated. People use to have lead pipes for drinking water and asbestos insulation and never thought twice about it. Now we know better. Condom use went up with the spread of AIDS, and so now has awareness of the ease that terminal disease can be spread by spit/blood/bile/feces/urine.

 

[TallPine]

Oh yeah, nice message to send out: "you may as well shoot a cop instead of spit on him[her] - the punishment is the same"

Not saying that I think that - just that some people may get that message and LEOs everywhere will be in greater danger.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Care to comment on DUI checkpoints?"

I beg your pardon?

Being stopped and questioned at a DUI checkpoint is NOT punishment.

Being stopped and questioned at a DUI checkpoint and found to be driving while impaired, then taken into custody, processed, and held, is NOT punishment.

Standing in front of a judge, being fined $2,500 or more, having your license suspended, etc. IS punishment.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"And what if he has some disease he is unaware of? How would anyone prove that he knowingly tried to harm the officer?"

If he didn't know he had the disease, that's one thing. Proof then would be impossible.

That fact wouldn't, however, negate the individual's culpability for lesser charges, such as attempted manslaughter, reckless endangerment, etc.

 

[Graystar]

Care to comment on DUI checkpoints?

I fail to see the similarity. The act of driving while under the influence is a crime, so a person doing so has already done the deed and is guilty. A checkpoint doesn't impose jail time. The police have *always* had the power to simply pull you over just to make sure your license, registration and insurance are valid. Is it right to use that power for the purpose of smelling your breath? Is that an abuse of that power? Could be. But that's a completely separate issue than the issue presented in the case at hand.

 

[sanchezero]

I'd see the potential to charge him with assault with a deadly, but only if he's positive.

If his 'victim' then contracts and dies of a communicable disease it seems like manslaughter, maybe murder 2.

These charges rarely get life sentences.



I think it's crap, a big steaming pile of it.

 

[rock jock]

I remember a couple of years back, the ACT UP group was planning on throwing what they said was HIV-tainted blood on politicians who were not willing to put the country into bankruptcy to fund AIDS research. I think they actually threw some blood, but it ended up being cows blood. The point being that intentionally infecting someone with a deadly disease is tantamount to murder, or at least attempted murder if the target doesn't die. Had I been in this officer's shoes, the suspect might be at room temperature right now.