Janitor dips genitals in water bottle, gives woman STD

[brandon8283]

Seems a little rude....or tongue in cheek?

More like dick in bottle, but yea. Just joking, lol.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

t.i.l. there's a potty word that does not have a censor code

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Seems a little rude....or tongue in cheek?

that's...not a tongue

 

[brandon8283]

t.i.l. there's a potty word that does not have a censor code

any tom, dick, or harry should know that you can't just censor someone's name, that's rude

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

any tom, dick, or harry should know that you can't just censor someone's name, that's rude

So we can write that but not kitty cat?
seems like the Peter principle is at work

 

[Yatman]

mulva

just testing

 

[brandon8283]

So we can write that but not kitty cat?
seems like the Peter principle is at work

hey i don't make the rules i just abuse them

for legal reasons, this post is a joke

 

[Crzycjunx76]

So we can write that but not kitty cat?
seems like the Peter principle is at work

Someone just needs to take one for the team and name their kid P(kitty cat).

Proper noun, totally fair game, problem solved.

Can nickname the kid Kat if that makes you feel better.

 

[Eeyore]

At least the janitor can take solace in knowing that his penis is a deadly weapon.

Dude needs a business card

 

[Eeyore]

 

[superchuck500]

There is video evidence of the "indecent assault" that he is being charged with. If he tests positive for the STD and she now has it, yes there's a defense argument that could be made, but barring any evidence of a prior relationship between her and the janitor (which seems unlikely at this point), it would fail and he would also be convicted of the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Genome evidence probably not necessary with evidence or with a distinct lack of evidence of a prior relationship between the two.

Further, it probably doesn't matter if she got the STD from him or not. There is clear evidence that "aggravated assault with a deadly weapon" occurred, as having video that shows he put his STD-infected genitals in contact with her water bottle is already proof that the assault with a deadly weapon occurred, whether or not the assault was successful.

If I attack you with a knife but don't manage to cut you, did assault with a deadly weapon not occur?

The prosecution rests, your honor.

If the knife was in a case than rendered it useless it’s not assault with a deadly weapon. If you can’t give someone an std by sticking your dick in a water bottle you can’t attempt to give someone an std by sticking your dick in their water bottle. It’s not attempted murder to try to melt someone’s brain with telekinesis- because that’s not possible even if you believe it is and try really hard.

Maybe she got mouth herpes. Maybe HPV got in her blood stream through her mouth and she now has HPV in her vagina. I’m just saying I’m not taking these things at face value because they seem sensible - I’d like to see some kind of medical evidence that this is how it works (cause it’s not how it usually works). In a trial there would be a disease expert and that would be that,

Here’s a paper that seems to conclude that transmissible herpes virus can persist on plastic for up to two hours, though with total count dropping rapidly. But that certainly would be long enough for something like this to happen. So that seems reasonable.

Survival of herpes simplex virus type 1 on some frequently touched objects in the home and public buildings - PubMed

The survival of herpes simplex virus type 1 in tissue culture fluid on doorknobs and washbasin tap handles over a 2 h period was investigated. The doorknobs were made of plastic and the taps had a chrome-plated surface. The stock virus suspension had a titre of 10(7.5) TCID50/0.1 ml, and a 0.01...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[brandon8283]

So that seems reasonable.

The real STD is the friends we made along the way.

 

[brandon8283]

If you can’t give someone an std by sticking your dick in a water bottle you can’t attempt to give someone an std by sticking your dick in their water bottle.

Serious rebuttal: there’s obviously precedent for charging assault with a deadly weapon and/or attempted murder for STDs.

Is putting your dick in someone’s water bottle an assault on its own? The “indecent assault” charge tends to imply that the prosecutor believes so.

If it’s an assault, and an STD-infected penis is a deadly weapon when used in the context of sexual acts, then it’s assault with a deadly weapon.

The intent or lack of intent to give an STD is irrelevant, just like if a mugger with a knife never actually intended to stab his victim and the knife was all for show. It’s still an assault with a deadly weapon.

Or perhaps if the mugger had a gun in his waistband and merely opened his jacket to reveal it. Didn’t even put his hands on it. Can he kill someone just by showing he has a gun? No, but it’s still assault with a deadly weapon.

 

[superchuck500]

Serious rebuttal: there’s obviously precedent for charging assault with a deadly weapon and/or attempted murder for STDs.

Is putting your dick in someone’s water bottle an assault on its own? The “indecent assault” charge tends to imply that the prosecutor believes so.

If it’s an assault, and an STD-infected penis is a deadly weapon when used in the context of sexual acts, then it’s assault with a deadly weapon.

The intent or lack of intent to give an STD is irrelevant, just like if a mugger with a knife never actually intended to stab his victim and the knife was all for show. It’s still an assault with a deadly weapon.

Or perhaps if the mugger had a gun in his waistband and merely opened his jacket to reveal it. Didn’t even put his hands on it. Can he kill someone just by showing he has a gun? No, but it’s still assault with a deadly weapon.

No, I don't think anyone has ever been charged with assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder for spreading herpes.

I think that in some extreme cases, there have been such charges for HIV back when AIDS often resulted in death but that's no longer the case and I don't think those kinds of charging decisions and convictions happen anymore. I think these days most STD related crimes are based on specific statutes related to the transmission of STDs, probably in part due to the difficulty in applying more traditional crimes against a person concepts.

I wasn't saying that intent or lack of intent was material to this part of the analysis, I was saying that it matters if it can't be spread that way. I won't be charged with attempted arson if I try to light my enemy's house on fire using pudding.