[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Aubrey spat in a sandwich and lots of people applauded, same difference

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.

6. Lastly, but not least - I FECKING adore Aubrey, but I don't give a fecal sandwich for the cop, so I am biased.