(no subject)

[raybear]

I woke up and its 1987?

I joke, but this actually makes me livid. Probably because I was working at Lambda back when this same issue was brought up in Ohio and thankfully, that court ruled in favor of SCIENCE and not panic, fear and loathing. Though maybe that was an appellate court, and not a trial jury.

Let's all say it together three times, let's rewire our brains together -- you cannot transmit HIV by saliva.

Comments

oh dear fucking god...

[dommeyourass.livejournal.com]

there is an additional thing that is infuriating me about this scenario. 1) the ONLY reason this case is a felony is because the complaining witness is a police officer. otherwise it would be an (a)(2) battery ("insulting or provoking" conduct) which would carry a maximum sentence of 364 days in jail with day for day credit or 180 days. 2) how the FUCK did his attorney not bring in an expert to testify that one can not transmit HIV through saliva? if he (or she) went to the effort to take the case to trial, why the hell didn't he go the little extra effort to show that the state could not prove an essential element of the offense: i.e. that saliva is a deadly weapon. at the VERY least, even if the county would not pay for an expert, cross examine the cop on the issue. and 3) there must be more to this story. that sentence is excessive.

[broqued.livejournal.com]

it is always 1887 in texas. 1987 sometimes.

[famousmiller.livejournal.com]

This is infuriating. Also: shouldn't the article include at least one quote saying that HIV cannot be transmitted via saliva? This just perpetuates ignorance.

[thewisejustking.livejournal.com]

I imagine this will stir the average American to significantly less anger than your suggesting Marco De whatshisface is a transman.