Quote:
Originally Posted by kirklancaster
(Post 9046420)
:laugh: You have me hoisted upon my own petard Cherie, because - yes - I did kind of defend Aubrey, whom I am a huge fan of, but there are real differences between these two incidents and some mitigation in Aubrey's case, whereas there is none whatsoever in the cop's case.
1. Stephen Bear antagonized Aubrey (and the other females) with his deliberately nasty, misogynistic and bossy attitudes, so he was culpable in a contributory causal way to Aubrey's admittedly disgusting action.
2. The homeless man - based on the scant information available - did nothing to antagonize the cop and was a totally innocent victim of his disgusting act.
3. There is a huge difference in spit and feces - in potential risk to health by the transference of disease especially, as spit/saliva contains numerous antibacterial properties, whereas feces not only does not, but can actually contain harmful pathogens, hence the warnings to 'Wash Your Hands' after visiting a loo.
4. Although both acts can be said to be 'deliberate', Aubrey's act was more a an instant, opportunistic, 'spur of the moment' one, whereas the cop's actions were 'premeditated', and rather more complex in both preparation and execution - having to obtain the bread AND the fecal matter, prepare the sandwich and take it to the homeless man.
5. The 'victim' of Aubrey's disgusting act - Stephen Bear - later sanctioned her act by INVITING her to spit directly into his mouth, thereby eliminating the 'third party medium' which was the sandwich, but I don't see any reports that the homeless man later chased down the cop and asked him to shet straight into his mouth.:hee:
6. Lastly, but not least - I FECKING adore Aubrey, but I don't give a fecal sandwich for the cop, so I am biased. :laugh:
|
Spit falls squarely in the realm of "bodily fluids" that I mentioned in my previous post. It is seen as a health risk just like blood, semen, urine, poop, snot, etc... and they do charge people for transfer of spit... If they have an actual disease (such as HIV), then the charges would be higher to accommodate...
I know, because that happened to my husband, they spat in his face and and we got a workman's comp letter for it because he has to report it as an "injury". Investigations also added it to the list of their charges when they went back and reviewed the incident.
If you drink from someone elses glass willingly, that's a different matter.
Also on your point #1 and #2... I don't think that anything the homeless person could've done would've lessened the severity of this crime. However, that's my moral view on the situation, so not really an
argument worth debating as we all have varying views on morality.
Now if you want an argument, if a homeless person was "particularly" rough or disrespectful (
verbally) and accosted the office in some manner (let's say overtly racist or something)... then it doesn't then give the officer right to make it OK to give them a feces sandwich. That would not make it acceptable in the eyes of the law.
In the same vein, if an officer is racist and verbally abusive towards a suspect or inmate and then the inmate decides to throw feces at them... then that doesn't negate that charge in the eyes of the law either. Or urine, or spit, whatever...
So to me, pretty cut and clear...
in the eyes of the law. Now for you and others, it may be more morally unacceptable because of the disparate class differences between these individuals... whereas Aubrey and Bear well... both willingly participating in a chronically obnoxious and raucous reality show... but this is where the logic ends for me and the emotional arguments begin. For me it's an emotional argument to weigh the two against each other morally speaking... so it's not really a good argument as it is a strong feeling (i.e. emotional). Whereas I can understand it in a way if we were saying apples versus oranges compared to the difference in social positions of these individuals (one having a lot more authority over the other, etc)... and I've learned
never to try to re-convince someone on their strongly felt "feelings"...so for me, I just accept it's a
difference in opinion.
I will add a little bit more weight on your side by saying... in the case of where these people are charged in the detention facility, it is densely populated (read: overpopulated) and has a
**** circulation system (no ventilation). We call it the city crud, because everything gets in there and everyone catches it every year... my husband never used to call out of work, neither did my uncle when they got sick... and they learned to take off work because that **** will be put you in the ER in a minute if you're not vigilant in taking care of yourself. So I guess add that to your argument... there is certainly
a lot more inherent medical risks within that population for other reasons as well.
Edit: Anyway, the DA is not going to charge every single incident unless there is a huge moral proponent to it because to do so is wreckless, would frustrate the public by way of wasted tax dollars and and people in admin would probably say it is
overcharging.. But we have to be careful about using
moral arguments... because we end up legitimizing some of the acts we may not necessarily say we are .... such as incidents where people are provoking someone and and that person fights back.
Assault is assault.