-The Police-
said the prosecutor -- and apparently accepting that astonishing proposition, the jury decided Willie Campbell was attempting murder when he spit at a Dallas cop. Willie, to be sure, is HIV positive, but since the risk of spreading the disease in this fashion is minuscule, it calls into question whether changing lanes without signaling, something with a far higher chance of killing someone, should be considered assault with a deadly weapon and a crime worthy of a sentence like Willie's: 35 years.
"No matter how minuscule, there is some risk,"
"That means there is the possibility of causing serious bodily injury or death."That means, according to Dallas County prosecutor Jenni Morse, that the remotest of possibilities is to be treated as a certainty and because it's possible than nearly anything you do, any object you pick up or put down, every movement you make, every breath that you take could harm someone, it's a deadly weapon. Think carefully the next time you change lanes . Think twice before cursing your boss - curses just might work.
OK, so Willie Campbell isn't a nice guy - he has bitten other inmates and has attacked other officers. Mens Rea or criminal intent isn't hard to establish in his case, but precedent is precedent and if I have now to consider remote possibilities as accomplished facts, don't I have to wonder how our increasingly Zero Tolerant country will treat pillow fights that go awry or anything said or done in anger that by some freak of chance results in death?
Absurdity is reality today. You can be guilty of a serious crime for possessing an empty container which once held a substance that is illegal. You can be guilty of a crime if you open an e-mail with an illegal drawing, even if you delete it. You can be given only 18 years for giving a lethal dose of heroin to a minor as De Leon Vanegas Jr. was given in the courtroom next door.
From the Jury and the lawmen, good Lord protect us.
6 comments:
What in the hell has happened to our country?
Damned if I know. Maybe it was always an insane asylum and I just didn't realize it - or maybe the inmates have taken over.
A black convict in Texas. He might just as well slit his own throat whether he actually committed the crime or not.
Ah yes, Texas - home of the infamous "innocence is no defense" decision.
I have to disagree with you here. Maybe I'm biased because my brother is a police officer who is as honorable as anyone I know, and he's been subjected to indignities, had both elbows broken by thugs, had both legs permanently damaged by a fleeing drunk driver who ran over him, etc. So when an individual who knows he's HIV positive spits into the eye of a cop, while resisting a rightful arrest, in the hope that he's attempting murder (which I believe was his motive), then throw the book at the guy. Whether odds are great or poor, attempted murder is attempted murder, so I have no problem with what I know of this case.
My problem is with the precedent and with the way the prosecutor worded her opinion far more than with the case itself. It's an opening for justifying prejudice and emotionalism.
I have no particular sympathy with the defendant in this case, but when a prosecutor claims that the slightest possibility of a possibility of harm is the equivalent of the actual harm, I'm worried. If something can be misused, it will be misused.
When does resisting arrest become assault with a deadly weapon if we apply this standard? Even more, when does any angry act become attempted murder? This kind of speech only serves to blur the law and thus make it more easily abused.
It reminds me a little of the black guy lynched for rape because he whistled at a white girl. Extreme? yes, but its the extreme cases that test the law.
Post a Comment