> Aside from any vested interest such an organization might have in the > issue, I will repeat: ADW is based on perception of the victim, not > reality. Brandishing a realistic looking toy gun, or inert plastic > replica, will still get you charged with assault with a deadly weapon, if > you do so with the intention of making your victims think it is a real > firearm. > > This isn't about medical fact, it's about the law.
Okay, fine, we'll ignore admissible evidence (fortunately for justice in this country, the courts won't) and focus on the law.
All the women have to do is state that they believed his spit was dangerous, so the man can be charged. When have they done so? I've not seen anything yet in the press coverage to indicate they've made such charges.
You'd think by now we'd've heard such an allegation. Usually people arrested for assault against the person trying to kill them are pretty quick to file charges against the person trying to kill them.
> And you have no idea at all what the guy was screaming while he spit at > his victims.
Actually, I do, based what some of them women themselves told reporters. They were there, so they probably know what he said. And they talked directly to the press. I'm also assuming that the women are telling the truth about what happened, a generous statement given that one of them claims they were victims of a "hate crime."
> Also, and this is not a rhetorical question, and if you insist on > continuing to defend this psychotic asshole,
Please go back and read the parts of my message where I said this man needed to be prosecuted for his crimes. I'm not defending this asshole, I'm saying he didn't deserve to be nearly killed for aggressive name-calling.
> are you claiming that there > are *no* life-treatening diseases that can be transmitted by saliva? > Zero? None? Be sure to cite sources on that, as well.
I made no such claim and you know it. You kept bringing up AIDS as the major threat from the saliva, and I showed you were wrong about that.
There are, of course, a number of life-threatening diseases that can be spread via saliva. Maybe this man wanted to infect these women with Polio? The common Cold (hey, if it develops into pneumonia, it could be deadly!)? Heptatis A? Hand-Foot-and-Mouth disease? Herpes simplex? The mumps? Meningitis? Not a complete list, but all potentially disabling or deadly if you have absolutely no access to medical care.
Plenty of options here (well, except for polio) that, if left utterly neglected, could be deadly--which one do you think this man was trying to infect them with? What part of his statements (as reported by the press) leads you to believe he was trying to infect them? And how do you think he would've managed to keep the women from receiving the medical care that would keep the disease from becoming fatal? (That's the part of the plan that would be really impressive).
>> If these women are planning to defend themselves in court by claiming >> the man's spit put then at risk for HIV exposure, they're in for a >> very ugly surprise. > > Unless, of course, he was screaming death threats at them concerning HIV > infection.
And so far, the women have made no such claim that this was the case. Where are you hearing that they've done so? I haven't found a press report alleging that the man said anything about having HIV or AIDS, nor that the women accuse him of doing such a thing.
You'd think the women's legal counsel would be all over that, and hollering to the press about it.
> Or, given that he's clearly a psychotic homophobe, perhaps *he* believed > he could infect them with some disease he carries, and was screaming that > death threat at them while spitting.
I've checked the news aggregators again, and can find no press reports indicating that he screamed death threats. The police haven't alleged this, the witnesses haven't alleged this, and most importantly, the women who nearly killed this man haven't alleged it. The women haven't even claimed self-defense as justification for their actions, just that they were "victims" of a "hate crime".
Nowhere in the press is there any indication that women have once said, "We were afraid for our lives, this man was trying to kill us" or anything of that nature.
>> There is absolutely no indication (again, from the press coverage) >> that he was attempting to use his spit as a weapon. > > There is also absolutely no indication that he wasn't.
That doesn't mean you can assume he was. As you said before, "it's about the law", and innocent until proven guilty is still the law. Until the women file charges saying that they believed his spit was dangerous and he tried to harm them with it...well, you're just making things up about the man.
> And? Do you really think that's anything near a complete story?
The complete story will come out in court. My point is that I'm making my assertions based on statements made by the women to the press. They aren't making allegations even close to what you're arguing. You seem to pulling your assertions out of thin air.
> Sounds like a threat to rape them all.
Sounds like an insult. Unless the women believed that he was incredibly fast, strong, and powerful, to be able to rape a group of seven of them all by himself, without any sort of weapon.
> So he's also throwing cigarettes? If you think that's not assault, in all > seriousness, you should let me throw cigarettes at you.
One of the women who was attacked said he threw _a_ cigarette--as in, ONE cigarette--at them. We don't even know from her statement if the cigarette was lit.
> If you do not > *immediately* volunteer to be a target, then you're just a hypocrite. Or > a 'tard, which amounts to the same thing.
No facts, so you resort to insults. <rolls eyes>
Sure, through away. I've had enough lit cigarettes fall on my, or accidentally been in the path of one being thrown away, that I completely understand how insignificant a threat that represents.
When do you want to come over to my place and throw a cigarette at me? Hell, I'll spring for the pack, and the matches, too. I can't do it this weekend, I'm having guests in from out of town, but I'm off on Friday afternoon. Shoot me an e-mail, we'll make arrangements.
>> Yeah, you can tell HIV exposure was really paramount in their minds. > > It's a news article. Only a fucking retard would think they can get an > accurate picture of what happened from it. Do you believe you got an > accurate picture of what happened from it?
I believe that I'm working with the facts at hand. You, on the other hand, are coming up with "OMG HIS SPIT IS FILLED WITH HIV AND THE POOR LESBIANS WERE AFRAID FOR THEIR LIVES EVEN THOUGH IT WAS SEVEN ON ONE AND HE WAS TRYING TO RAPE THEM AND HE THREW CARTONS OF CIGARETTES TOO HE SHOULD DIE DIE DIE DIE!!!", none of which has any basis in what we know so far.
> Except they are, unless you claim to know what happened. Since you > weren't there, and have no source of what happened other than news > articles (which are very likely all drawing from the same news wire > story), you can't possibly know what happened. Are you retarded enough to > believe otherwise?
I'm at least reading the press reports. You haven't claimed that you were present at the attack, but you're utterly confident that this man was trying to infect them with HIV via his spit, attempted to rape them (because seven women could not possibly stop one unarmed man from raping all of them), and that the women were terrified for their lives. What's YOUR source?
>> Knowledge of actual facts, which you do not have either,
So you admit that you don't have any facts.
could change >>> this, of course. >> You now have the facts showing that HIV isn't transmitted by spit; I >> hope you change accordingly. >> > I did mention other diseases, as well.
No, actually, you didn't. You ranted about HIV/AIDS. Which isn't transmitted by spit.
> And, again, ADW does not depend on real threat, only on a reasonable > perception of threat on the part of the victim.
And we know that the women believed he was a real threat to call of them because...?
> Plus, of course, throwing > cigarettes - are you ready to let me throw cigarettes at you?
Sure, why not? I'm in Kentucky, I've been around cigarettes my whole live. Hell, I've helped bring in tobacco--a nasty, nasty process. I have no fear of cigarettes.
Just do what one of the women claimed was done to them: _ONE_ cigarette at me. And please note she didn't even say it was lit; but we'll assume it was, and that it wasn't even burned down significantly. You can have one cigarette, light it, take three or four puffs of it to work up a good head of heat, then stand within five feet of me and throw it at me.
Honestly, unless these women were soaked in gasoline, they didn't have a lot to fear from ONE cigarette.
(I suddenly have this image of seven tough, butch lesbians running screaming into the night, like vampires fleeing from crosses, because someone threw one unlit cigarette in their general direction....)
> All in all, it still looks to me like the fucker got no more than he > deserved.
He got _way_ more than he deserved. He got a beat down far out of proportion with what he dished out. Those women will spend the rest of their lives paying his medical and disability bills, plus whatever compensation for emotional damages the judge decides to hand out.
Which is a shame, because there's one thing you and I do agree on, which is that this man is a complete and utter asshole. Unfortunately, because of the way these women reacted to his assholish-ness, he'll probably take every dime they have while at least a couple of them do time in jail.