HIV as a deadly-force consideration

[BrokenPaw]

I recently moved someone from the "friend" to the "non-friend, not welcome in my home, don't let the door hit you on the way out, please don't come back" category. This person is...unstable, and that's some of the reason I chose to part ways with her. I've no reason to believe that she'd try to physically hurt me, but as I said, she's not stable, and it's in my nature to think about all possible scenarios.

It happens that she's HIV-positive. It got me thinking, how would that change my response if she did go crazy and decide to physically attack me...

I didn't put this in Strategies & Tactics because I'm more interested in the legal aspects of the matter; if you know that your attacker is HIV positive, does that alter the legal situation at all? I seem to recall reading about how people with HIV who intentionally did things to infect others had been charged with (IIRC) assault with a deadly weapon. (I've no cite for this; just my foggy memory.)

I'm pretty sure that this girl couldn't kill me if she didn't have a weapon, but I'd bet she could make me bleed; at that point, I'd have an open wound, and would be much more susceptible to infection through fluid contact. So does a different threshold of deadly force apply in such a situation?

This is all hypothetical; as I said, I have no reason to believe that she's actually going to try to hurt me. Thoughts?

Namaste,
-BP

 

[DontBurnMyFlag]

I know this isnt strategies and tactics, but I have some suggestions along those lines. I cannot provide any legal info though. Sorry.

In my martial arts class, we learned how to disable and remove a threat without the use of brute force, broken bones or open wounds. My teacher said it is most useful for police or someone who is attacked by a homeless person/drug addict. Today's society is scary, anyone can have HIV, so you should never be too careful. If you have martial arts experience, look into removing the person using throws and takedowns. If not, and it is legal where you are, carry a cane, baton or long object to keep her distance from you. That is IF you expect her to attack you. The best advice I can give you is lay low. Just keep your guard up, but dont talk to her, answer calls, and avoid contact with her at all costs.

Legal ramifications are another story. I wish I could help, no doubt someone else on THR will, they always do.

 

[Standing Wolf]

This person is...unstable, and that's some of the reason I chose to part ways with her.

I've known several people with A.I.D.S. who were "...unstable." All too often, the disease includes severe mental deterioration.

 

[artherd]

Of course it is.

 

[Azrael256]

I can't answer the question directly, as I have insufficient legal knowledge, but I can come at it from angles with which I am familiar.

First of all, if she comes to kick in your door, the fact that she may or may not have HIV, bird flu, SARS, bronchitis, peptic ulcers, or athlete's foot is irrelevant. That much should be obvious.

I do know that, at least in Texas, it can be considered attempted murder for a person with HIV to knowingly engage in sexual intercourse with another person who has not been made aware of the first person's condition. I suspect this goes for all communicable diseases with a high probability of fatality. Therefore, I very strongly suspect that any violent act on the part of the HIV positive assailant that is intended to cause, or has a high probability of transmission of the disease would probably move up into the "deadly force" category faster than it would for a person who is not known to carry that disease.

So, yes, I think the deadly force threshold changes considerably when you know the attacker is carrying a deadly disease.

Of course, IANAL, IANALEO, and YMMV.

 

[Jeff White]

Illinois Law:

Here is the statute. People who know they are HIV positive and do things like throw body fluids at another have been successfully charged with Aggravated Battery and Attempted Murder. Most of the prosecutions come from correctional facilities.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050k12-16.2.htm

(720 ILCS 5/12‑16.2) (from Ch. 38, par. 12‑16.2)
Sec. 12‑16.2. Criminal Transmission of HIV. (a) A person commits criminal transmission of HIV when he or she, knowing that he or she is infected with HIV:
(1) engages in intimate contact with another;
(2) transfers, donates, or provides his or her blood, tissue, semen, organs, or other potentially infectious body fluids for transfusion, transplantation, insemination, or other administration to another; or
(3) dispenses, delivers, exchanges, sells, or in any other way transfers to another any nonsterile intravenous or intramuscular drug paraphernalia.
(b) For purposes of this Section:
"HIV" means the human immunodeficiency virus or any other identified causative agent of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
"Intimate contact with another" means the exposure of the body of one person to a bodily fluid of another person in a manner that could result in the transmission of HIV.
"Intravenous or intramuscular drug paraphernalia" means any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is peculiar to and marketed for use in injecting a substance into the human body.
(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to require that an infection with HIV has occurred in order for a person to have committed criminal transmission of HIV.
(d) It shall be an affirmative defense that the person exposed knew that the infected person was infected with HIV, knew that the action could result in infection with HIV, and consented to the action with that knowledge.
(e) A person who commits criminal transmission of HIV commits a Class 2 felony.
(Source: P.A. 86‑897.)

I'm not sure that that would permit you to use deadly force to protect yourself. Illinois has a pretty reasonable use of force law, it doesn't require you to retreat but it does state that you must feel you're in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...terID=53&SeqStart=8000&SeqEnd=9500&Print=True

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading) ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

(720 ILCS 5/7‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑1)
Sec. 7‑1. Use of force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

I'm not sure that possibly contracting HIV would fit a reasonable man's definition of imminent death or great bodily harm. Then again, you never can tell what a jury may buy off on.

Jeff

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

The key with HIV exposure is to go IMMEDIATELY to the nearest ER, tell them what happened, and demand post-exposure prophylaxis. I think the standard recommendation for that is a pill called Combivir, which is AZT + lamivudine.

The good news is, post-exposure prophylaxis is very effective if you get it immediately. I think the course is about one or two weeks. You take the course and you don't get HIV. In other words, AIDS can be "cured" if you start the right therapy within 72 hours of exposure. The bad news is the pills have side effects and will make you sick.

So... now that you know that an exposure like that is not likely to be life-threatening you'll have to handle it that way if it ever comes up (which we all hope is never).

 

[Biker]

That is some good info to have Taco. Thanks.
Biker

 

[BrokenPaw]

Thanks for the replies, all. Thanks, especially, Jeff, for the legal cites. Deseo, that's good information for everyone to know, as well.

As I said, I'm not actually worried that this particular person is going to try to hurt me; the thread is just a product of my stream-of-what-if mind.

If she comes trying to kick in the door, HIV or not she's already a deadly threat. I was thinking more along the lines of a one-on-one fight, where there's no disparity of force, and where I'd normally have a better-than-even chance of being able to stop her attack without suffering serious injury myself; in that case, the HIV itself becomes a factor in my mind.

Thanks, all!
-BP

 

[The Tourist]

Please be careful not to let her behavior tar everyone with problems as a potential threat. Let me explain.

I have been very open about being bipolar. I can take the heat, but most people who are bipolar are careful with that information. It becomes a 'catch all' reason for exclusion.

"For Pete sake, he's a bit odd, and he owns guns."

That comment was from people in my own church. Heck, most people think avid gun owners are paranoid, hence they are odd, and ergo, shouldn't own guns.

I was banned from a forum partially for being bipolar. I tangled with the forum owner, and "my conduct" became a reason for the ban. The fact that his conduct on an issue was juvenile and I could out-debate him was never mentioned. What was I going to do, reach through cyberspace and eat his brain?

Once people are dehumanized it becomes very easy to blunt their rights and to dispassionately treat them as most people would never tolerate. In an e-mail to me after the ban, the owner described me as "a burnt out Sicilian."

The slope is very slippery. When we pride ourselves on being Americans, denouncing the Nazis for concentration camps, it is important to realize that we too had Japanese concentration camps during that same period.

Granted, we didn't kill these people, but these American citizens never got their property back. And frankly, most of us dismiss this bizarre conduct by simply mouthing, "It was war, and these people were, in fact, Japanese."

The Florideans were asked to turn in their firearms recently. Were they more unstable simply because they were soaked by severe storms?

They are Japanese. She is HIV-positive. A Floridean with guns. A burnt out Sicilian.

 

[BrokenPaw]

Tourist,

For what it's worth (and at risk of hijacking my own thread), allow me to clarify a point:

Her HIV was not and is not a reason for her exclusion from the group. She was a trusted friend and part of my Grove (which approaches familial-level trust), and it turned out she was lying and had betrayed the trust of several of my congregation. To the point where (for those people who are familiar with the terms) we have considered declaring her Oathbreaker and Warlock -- not something to be done lightly.

She's unstable, emotionally and mentally, which led me to consider all possible situations for how she might react to being severed from our group. The extreme reaction, of course, would have been physical violence toward me or BrokenMa or one of our members, and that is what got me thinking about HIV in a threat-sense.

We've known about her HIV status for quite a long time, and it was never an issue. It's still not an issue, except in the abstract.

I don't actually think she's a threat. But as the de facto co-leader of a Grove, I'm required to think of all possible consequences of my actions, from the benign to the absurd.

Thank you for your input, though; it's something we all need to keep in mind. It's a short step from "the person who wronged me was {black|hispanic|a cop|HIV-positive|short|tall|jewish|hairy|white|male|female|whatever}" to "I therefore assume that all of them are like that." And that's never fair to the next person of that group who comes along.

Namaste,
-BP

 

[Byron Quick]

I've worked for three years in drug rehab. Three years in psychiatric nursing.
10 years in emergency nursing. And lived in the community for fifty one years.

Sorry, you don't have to have a physcial or a psychiatric diagnosis for me to consider you a threat.

One of my most treasured friends is bipolar. I taught him how to shoot and got him into martial arts. He's also the most intelligent person I have ever known. And one of the kindest.

I would personally consider being intenionally infected with HIV as being an act which encompassed imminent great bodily harm even though the consequences are years in the future.

One of the two times, that I have ever drawn a firearm was when two men began to fight in my living room. They refused my orders to desist and leave my premises. When they saw the gun, they ceased to fight and left. Both are dead from AIDS now. I was living in Midtown, Atlanta. I've heard that all of the male homosexuals that lived on Vedado Way then are dead from AIDS. That leaves five people still living from a street several blocks long.

 

[mtnbkr]

I've known several people with A.I.D.S. who were "...unstable." All too often, the disease includes severe mental deterioration.

Scientists have recently identified the areas of the brain damaged by HIV even when it's kept in check by drugs. People who's viral level is undectable continue to experience brain deterioration. It's slow, but it happens.

Chris

 

[Double Naught Spy]

A person with HIV can potentially and intentionally be a biohazard threat as much as any other infectious bug such as smallpox, if inflicted on another person.

Broken Paw, your HIV "friend" most definitely can kill you and is most definitely a very potential real biohazard threat if she acts against you during one of her unstable episodes.

 

[Adept]

I've had the great fortune of training regularly with the head security instructor for a local jail. One thing he said years ago really stuck in my mind. To paraphrase:

"Sure, you may have won the fight. But you also just got Hepatitis from the other guys blood. Who's the winner now?"

He used it to hammer home a point about the force continuum and the most appropriate techniques for dealing with encounters.

Ideally, you always want to stop someone without making them bleed, because you can never be sure what diseases they may be carrying. Obviously, I'm speaking from an Australian background, where the use of handguns for self defense is strictly prohibited, which means if you are dealing with a threat you are hands on. The ability to stop someone at range definately changes things significantly.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

A person with HIV can potentially and intentionally be a biohazard threat as much as any other infectious bug such as smallpox, if inflicted on another person.

Broken Paw, your HIV "friend" most definitely can kill you and is most definitely a very potential real biohazard threat if she acts against you during one of her unstable episodes.

Horsepucky.

There is a massive difference between smallpox, which infects on contact and HIV and other blood born illnesses. While the blood, semen and in some cases stool of the HIV infected person carry the virus, the HIV virus is rarely present in tears, spit and urine, and non-existent on the surface of the skin, sweat and anything else you might casually encounter.

i hate to say this but this gal is more in danger of killing you...as in the traditional way, than of infecting you with HIV:

Think about the mode of blood-blood transmission. Your wound is bleeding profusely OUT of your body, and so his hers. In order to get enough contact, you have to literally bathe in her blood, right from the source. Keep in mind that HIV dies off outside the body and has a lifespan outside its hospitable environment that is measured in seconds. Wound transmission is exceedingly rare.

Nurses get HIV from needles, but these needles are generally recently used, and the fluids get put INTO a hospitable environment. Getting stabbed then rubbed against another persons wound is just gross, not an optimal way to xmit HIV.

As for the legal stuff: just avoid her. She sounds like a nutbar, HIV or no HIV.

Good luck,

JJpdxpinkpistols
--doing HIV education for 20 years

 

[mtnbkr]

Wound transmission is exceedingly rare.

You're absolutely correct, but those statistics mean nothing when it's your own ass on the line.

Chris

 

[BrokenPaw]

JJpdxpinkpistols

You make valid points. I guess the question that I have failed to articulate is this:

If a person that I know to be HIV-positive has expressed an intent to attack me, is the legal threshold for self-defense using deadly force different, since although it is unlikely for HIV to be transmitted wound-to-wound, it is possible, and is therefore a threat to me?

As I've said, I'm not actually afraid of the girl I mentioned trying to hurt me. I'm just asking, in the abstract, whether known presence of HIV infection in an attacker alters the legal threshold for use of lethal force in self-defense.

Namaste,
-BP

 

[MikeIsaj]

I think most states have a similar law to the Illinois law Jeff White cites.

I don't have the book with me, so I can't look it up but Pa. calls it aggravated assault with intent to kill. We sent an inmate in my prison up for twenty years for spitting blood at an officer. The person charged must know or believe they are HIV positive.

A law like that certainly implies that "assault with HIV" could be seen as a real threat to life.

 

[The Tourist]

Broken Paw,

Thank you for the clarification. As you saw from me, "once bit, twice shy." This touches on some very passionate issues.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Think about the mode of blood-blood transmission. Your wound is bleeding profusely OUT of your body, and so his hers. In order to get enough contact, you have to literally bathe in her blood, right from the source. Keep in mind that HIV dies off outside the body and has a lifespan outside its hospitable environment that is measured in seconds. Wound transmission is exceedingly rare.

Hmmm. I am a surgeon, not an AIDS expert. However, I am not sure how much store to put into what you are saying.

The amount of blood transmitted from a hollow needle stick is extremely small, yet people get AIDS from that. If blood from a bleeding wound of an HIV patient gets onto a fresh wound of someone else, I would say there is definitely a risk of exposure.

Also, transmission can occur when HIV positive blood makes contact with mucous membranes, and the eyes.

Thats one of the reasons we wear gowns, gloves, and eye protection in the OR.

Granted, I think the risk of transmission of HIV in the scenario described is very small, but if it was me that was exposed, I would certainly be concerned.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

slightly off course...but still on topic

Hmmm. I am a surgeon, not an AIDS expert. However, I am not sure how much store to put into what you are saying.

I am not an HIV expert either.

and I did not mean to minimize the risk of exposure. What I took umbrage to is the assertion that HIV is as communicable as smallpox.

Also, transmission can occur when HIV positive blood makes contact with mucous membranes, and the eyes.

There are certainly instances of this. however, there are also many many instances where this transmission has NOT occurred.

Granted, I think the risk of transmission of HIV in the scenario described is very small, but if it was me that was exposed, I would certainly be concerned.

I would agree with all your statements above. Even with my willing concession as the truthfullness of the above, I do not feel that HIV should factor into the decision making process as to whether or not someone is a lethal threat -- using their sero status as the sole determinine factor. Nor do I buy the arguement that being in possession of the HIV retrovirus is a defacto escalation in terms of their lethality.

In short, if you gotta shoot someone in self defense, their serostatus is irrelevant...Their behaviour has gotten them into the situation, not their HIV. As with any unstable person or situation, it is a wise idea to avoid the situation altogether.

 

[MD_Willington]

The key with HIV exposure is to go IMMEDIATELY to the nearest ER, tell them what happened, and demand post-exposure prophylaxis. I think the standard recommendation for that is a pill called Combivir, which is AZT + lamivudine.

The good news is, post-exposure prophylaxis is very effective if you get it immediately. I think the course is about one or two weeks. You take the course and you don't get HIV. In other words, AIDS can be "cured" if you start the right therapy within 72 hours of exposure. The bad news is the pills have side effects and will make you sick.

So... now that you know that an exposure like that is not likely to be life-threatening you'll have to handle it that way if it ever comes up (which we all hope is never).

We had a police officer go through the post-exposure prophylaxis where I used to live, he required this simply because word got out among the heroin addicts that a vest could be punctured with a hypodermic. The officer arrested a women who stabbed him with a syringe multiple times. He came out okay.

Truly scary stuff.

 

[justashooter]

Tourist,

For what it's worth (and at risk of hijacking my own thread), allow me to clarify a point:

we have considered declaring her Oathbreaker and Warlock -- not something to be done lightly.

She's unstable, emotionally and mentally,

as the de facto co-leader of a Grove,

Thank you for your input,

Namaste,
-BP

allow me to clarify a point, having been a tree in a grove. considering someone a warlock and an oathbreaker seems to be a little bit emotionally and mentally unstable to me. when she throws a lightening bolt at you with her staff let me know.

making this comment on this PC board will prolly get me slammed, but i was in a camp associated with koresh in the early 80's, and know what kind of things go on in groves.

you defacto'd in your grove? we always went behind the tree for that.

you're welcome.

 

[BrokenPaw]

allow me to clarify a point, having been a tree in a grove. considering someone a warlock and an oathbreaker seems to be a little bit emotionally and mentally unstable to me. when she throws a lightening bolt at you with her staff let me know.

Um. I define "Oathbreaker" as "One who breaks oaths". As in, the ones she made to the rest of us in her circle. Where do you get "emotionally and mentally unstable" from "able to empirically determine that someone has violated her sworn word"?

Oh, and extra points for making a clever reference to excretory functions. I especially liked that part.

I think you probably have very little idea what goes on in my Grove.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

Namaste,
-BP