Well, you could chip a tooth maybe....

[beatniknight]

I've never realized this before, but the official name for intentionally infecting someone with HIV (that is, having unprotected sex with a person when you know you're infected but they don't) is "assault with a deadly weapon."

I dunno, I think they need a new crime that this can go under, something like "biological assault" or "epidemiological

Comments

[beatniknight]

Well, sexual assault, I believe, only refers to rape, molestation, or a violent attack on someone's genitalia (e.g. forced penetration with a roto-rooter as occurred a few months ago in Brooklyn, or, I think, the removal or scarring of a person's genitalia

[beatniknight]

No, no. I just meant the regular kind of rape. I was just talking about the difference between sexual assault and assault & battery. My point was only that it could be argued that sexual assault is not so heinous a crime as battery.

Infecting someone with HIV would, I think, be far, far worse than my example.

[journey_to_189]

In some jurisdictions, this intentional tort is known as "notorious disease" - although perhaps HIV is so deadly that it doesn't fit in that category.

And of course military types are happy to think their cock is a deadly weapon. I would be too. A semi-automatic (seven spurts before reload?) that hopefully isn't shooting blanks...

[beatniknight]

Well, I think that it's a slightly different situation, also, because infecting someone with HIV isn't like infecting someone with tuberculosis. You have to really try to infect someone.

[beatniknight]

Medical bills.

But still, it seems like "assault with a deadly weapon" just isn't the right name for what happened.