[arista]

Originally Posted by hijaxers

Where this happened is really of no consequence as a filthy disgusting act like this shouldn't be happening anywhere , especially by someone in his position , its bad enough people are homeless - nevermind demeaning them and treating them like filth ! Totally disgusts me .

I do not Agree
It would not be England


So it would have to be Nasty USA
or crazy China

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

My words too. It beggars belief why any civilised person would want to do this.

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

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

W... But...

...normal people don't have **** in their mouth, Cherie...

[Amy Jade]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

That is a totally different situation but barely anyone applauded that, a few sure but even her fans (myself included) thought it was disgusting.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I think that the biggest positives to take from this disgusting act, is that 3 other DECENT officers reported this filthy get, and that the Police Authority acted promptly and correctly.

Was coming in to say this, no need to now, I agree totally.

[Ammi]

...I remember reading a story/article once about a Youtuber who disguised himself as a homeless person and tried to give money to people as they passed him by...he was attempting to give something that would touch hearts and brighten days but his gesture was met with quite a lot of contempt...uggghhh, I don't need your money, I could buy and sell you in a moment/I drive a whatever expensive car etc, type thing....sadly the homeless..(anywhere in the world..)..are viewed in such a way as being 'less than human' by some people so it's really no shock in itself as cruel and awful as it is....what is the shock though is that it was a police officer who is meant to protect all citizens ..all being all and including the homeless who are some of the most vulnerable in society...it's right that he was sacked but is it not also a crime/what he did...an assault..?...maybe a prosecution is also appropriate...

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

W... But...

...normal people don't have **** in their mouth, Cherie...

Normal people don't have other people's spit in their mouth either without consent. Both acts were awful.

[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.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

Fair dues Kirk, I wondered if you would recall

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Fair dues Kirk, I wondered if you would recall

Honestly Cherie? I WAS going to try to 'cock a deaf 'un' - but it is YOU we are talking about so I thought I might as well own up and come up with a good defence.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

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.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

eliminating the 'third party medium' which was the sandwich

[Beso]

He should be thankfull it wasnt a mcdonalds.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by parmnion

He should be thankfull it wasnt a mcdonalds.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by parmnion

He should be thankfull it wasnt a mcdonalds.

Interesting that you mention that... there is a McDonalds right where the homeless pander in my section of town. Anyway, I really feel bad for them that their pander spot is next to that particular one. I went to it once... and I won't go there again... because literally it is located in a bird kingdom of Poop... I went there out of pure starvation one night to get some fries, and that was the first time in YEARS since I'd been to one... I don't eat much cheap fast food anymore...anyway, it was 3-4am in the morning and the birds were just chirp chirp chirp-ing along. It sounded like the bird kingdom at the zoo. Anyway now I associate McDonalds with bird ****.

[Alf]

I'm not 100% sure this is true, because I've heard the homeless man talks a lot of shyte.