Spit On & Bite A Cop...

Printable View

10-19-2003, 01:59 AM
Mr. Blunt

Quote:

John Marquez, 36, received a life sentence after spitting on a policeman during his arrest for allegedly beating his wife. Marquez from Sapulpa, Oklahoma received such a severe punishment because of the risk of transmitting a potentially deadly disease. Marquez, who was drunk at the time, also bit the policeman when he tried to prevent him from spitting again. Both men tested negative for any communicable diseases.

Source: http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat...es0200310171150

Whoa. I don't even know were to put this. Should this be here, or in funny stuff? I understand the reason about transmitting a disease, but to bad they don't say were the spit was at. If it was on his shoe or something, theres no way you can get a disease from that. (Well diseases that can be passed by spit.) This guy was already in deep shit for beating his wife, but damn, a life sentence?

Comments?
10-19-2003, 02:02 AM
MagicNakor

Best guess would be he spat on the officer's face. ;) Nasty drunks don't tend to go for the shoes.

:ninja:
10-19-2003, 02:20 AM
Rat Faced

Even if it was in the cops open mouth and he swallowed it, it does not deserve a Life Sentence, unless he knew he had a comutable disease and there was intent to spread it....

And even then; only if it was a fatal disease with no cure or something....

As they both tested negative for a disease, i cant see how there was any "intent".....
10-19-2003, 02:24 AM
MagicNakor

But perhaps beating your wife deserves a life sentence.

:ninja:
10-19-2003, 02:34 AM
Rat Faced

Maybe... however i was commenting regarding this line:

Quote:

Marquez from Sapulpa, Oklahoma received such a severe punishment because of the risk of transmitting a potentially deadly disease.

He deserves to be sent to the lower hells for beating on a women anyway....but to "receive such severe punishment" for spitting at a cop is, frankly, outrageous. If he had reseived "such severe punishment" for nearly killing his wife, and the spitting had been mentioned in passing, i wouldnt have a problem.
10-19-2003, 07:26 AM
MagicNakor

Although if he's serving a life sentence, he won't be beating his wife anymore.

So maybe it all works out anyway.

:ninja:
10-19-2003, 07:28 AM
sparsely

It'll never hold up on appeal, if anyone there has any common sense...
but, then agai, they gave that clumsy coffee-drinking bitch millions.
<_<
10-19-2003, 07:41 AM
billyfridge

To take this post a step further, if you sneeze in lift\escalator etc, you could get a life sentance. the message we're getting here is, you can beat your wife, but god help you if you spit on a cop. what a load of bollocks <_<
10-19-2003, 10:45 AM
J'Pol

Don't take the phrase life sentence too literally, in relation to how long he will serve in prison. It seldom means anything even remotely like that.

In the UK the judge will say that and then also say what term should be served, which will then be subject to parole.

The life sentence part means that when the person is released they will be out, on licence. If they re-offend the licence will be revoked and another term will be served. However as they are re-offenders I have little sympathy.

That's my understanding of the UK situation.

PS I find it difficult to have sympathy for a wife beater who bites and spits on a Policeman who is arresting him. I would venture that he is guilty of serious assault / actual bodily harm, whether he is disease ridden or not.
10-20-2003, 12:03 AM
Busyman

Quote:

Originally posted by JPaul@19 October 2003 - 10:45
Don't take the phrase life sentence too literally, in relation to how long he will serve in prison. It seldom means anything even remotely like that.

In the UK the judge will say that and then also say what term should be served, which will then be subject to parole.

The life sentence part means that when the person is released they will be out, on licence. If they re-offend the licence will be revoked and another term will be served. However as they are re-offenders I have little sympathy.

That's my understanding of the UK situation.

PS I find it difficult to have sympathy for a wife beater who bites and spits on a Policeman who is arresting him. I would venture that he is guilty of serious assault / actual bodily harm, whether he is disease ridden or not.

Regardless, a "life sentence" even being said is outrageous.
It wasn't attempted murder.

It sounds like 2 counts of assault and 1 count of resisting arrest.
Where the hell do we get these dumb ass judges/jurors?
America's judicial system is ultimately too powerful.
10-20-2003, 12:07 AM
J'Pol

Remember the Judge takes antecedents into account when passing sentence.
10-20-2003, 12:24 AM
Busyman

Quote:

Originally posted by JPaul@20 October 2003 - 00:07
Remember the Judge takes antecedents into account when passing sentence.

Doesn't matter in this case.
The sentence itself was spurious. This is almost precedent setting.
10-20-2003, 12:44 AM
J'Pol

I have not seen the antecedents in this case, can you possibly enlighten me.
10-20-2003, 03:32 AM
Busyman

There is no 3 strikes law in Oklahoma. Unless this guy was on probation from another case the sentence in too harsh for the crime committed. This particular sentence was passed partially because of a risk of transmitting disease. Reeeeeeeedikulus :blink:
10-20-2003, 08:02 PM
J'Pol

Quote:

Originally posted by Busyman@20 October 2003 - 04:32
There is no 3 strikes law in Oklahoma. Unless this guy was on probation from another case the sentence in too harsh for the crime committed. This particular sentence was passed partially because of a risk of transmitting disease. Reeeeeeeedikulus :blink:

Sorry I may be unclear. In the UK the Jury will make it's decision based on the evidence presented. They are not aware of any previous convictions.

If they find guilty the Judge will then make his sentence, taking previous convictions into account. So someone who perhaps had previous GBH on a few occasions would be sentenced much more harshly then a first offender.

If one was not aware of this these convictions and just looked at the one offence it may seem OTT.

I had assumed that your system would have been similar. If that were the case then antecedents would be very important. This may not be a one-off incident. Say for example he was a serial wife-beater and child abuser. The Judge may think, stuff this, he needs taken away from society. I can sentence to life so I will.

If that were the case then the sentence would be reflective of the life of violence as opposed to the specific violent act.

I don't think the sneezing in an elevator is really analogous, unless of course I were to be in said elevator, in which case the crime is heinous and hanging is too good.
10-21-2003, 02:42 AM
Busyman

Still, antecedents don't take precedent over established guidelines for sentencing. If one could get 2-5 years for shoplifting, it's maybe 2 years for a first time offender or 5 for a repeater (and of course anywhere in between). I shouldn't even be able to get life for shoplifting. That's the reason this is harsh.

(the years of sentence were just to use as examples)
10-21-2003, 04:32 AM
Billy_Dean

The panel recommended a life sentence for John Marquez after he was convicted of placing bodily fluids on a government employee, a felony offense that carries a term ranging from four years to life.

Jurors convicted Marquez, 36, on Wednesday of the felony and of two misdemeanors.

Assistant District Attorney Laura Farris had asked for a 25-year term based on Marquez's prior felony convictions in 1986, which included first-degree rape and first-degree burglary.

Source story.

:)
10-21-2003, 05:06 AM
MagicNakor

Good.

:ninja:
10-21-2003, 05:21 AM
j2k4

This is (because of the disease issue) similar to enhanced sentences for "hate" crimes.
10-21-2003, 08:07 PM
J'Pol

So we now have the context of a convicted rapist and burglar. Who was also a wife beater and assaulted the Police Officers by spitting at them and biting one of them.

I suspect that may be the reason for the "harsh" sentence. Like I said earlier, it looks like the Judge has thought, enough.

Antecedents are important in sentencing.
10-22-2003, 01:44 PM
Busyman

Quote:

Originally posted by JPaul@21 October 2003 - 20:07
So we now have the context of a convicted rapist and burglar. Who was also a wife beater and assaulted the Police Officers by spitting at them and biting one of them.

I suspect that may be the reason for the "harsh" sentence. Like I said earlier, it looks like the Judge has thought, enough.

Antecedents are important in sentencing.

Yeah I know antecedents are important but....ouch I did NOT know the "guidelines" in sentenceing for "placing bodily fluids on a government employee". Hell you can get life for that? :(

If there wasn't the 4 years to life sentencing in the guidelines he could not get THAT sentence for THAT crime.

As I said antecedents do not take precedent over established sentencing guidelines. Antecedents are the guide for minimum and maximum sentencing.
10-22-2003, 02:01 PM
Billy_Dean

You seem worried by this Busyman, is it "Three strikes and you're out!" where you live?

:)
10-22-2003, 02:28 PM
Busyman

:lol: :lol:

No I'm in Washington DC. I've been held in jail (for suspicion)but not arrested (when I was muuuuuch younger). I do have some friends in a "3 strikes" state that are on strike 2.

I lead a good life though and just wish some of these knuckleheads on the street would get their act together.
10-22-2003, 06:38 PM
J'Pol

I take your point, there is a minimum and maximum sentence for the offence in question.

The judge would then take the antecedents (previous convictions) to decide where within this scale he would sentence.

In this case the judge has decided to go for the max, because of the previous convictions. Obviously if the max were say 12 years then that is how high he could have gone. Just unlucky for this prick that the judge could give him life.

I say again, in this instance, I have little or no sympathy. Just another rapist and wife beater off the streets in my opinion. The only pity is he will get out, probably after a relatively short period.
10-22-2003, 06:52 PM
Billy_Dean

Quote:

Originally posted by JPaul@23 October 2003 - 03:38
The only pity is he will get out, probably after a relatively short period.

Will he? I thought life was life in the US.

:)
10-22-2003, 06:54 PM
J'Pol

Quote:

Originally posted by Billy_Dean+22 October 2003 - 19:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 22 October 2003 - 19:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@23 October 2003 - 03:38
The only pity is he will get out, probably after a relatively short period.

Will he? I thought life was life in the US.

:) [/b][/quote]
Really, another mis-conception on my part. I had assumed parole was available for lifers, as it is in the UK.

Just shows what assumption does.
10-22-2003, 07:03 PM
j2k4

Quote:

Originally posted by Busyman@22 October 2003 - 09:28
:lol: :lol:

No I'm in Washington DC. I've been held in jail (for suspicion)but not arrested (when I was muuuuuch younger). I do have some friends in a "3 strikes" state that are on strike 2.

I lead a good life though and just wish some of these knuckleheads on the street would get their act together.

Good for you, steering past youthful trouble to productive adulthood. Your admonition to the "knuckleheads" is, I hope, appreciated.

Wash. D.C. is a rough go.

It should be a model.

Stay busy, man. ;)
10-23-2003, 02:10 AM
MagicNakor

Life is rarely life nowadays. I've heard of people being put on parole after five years or so.

:ninja:
10-29-2003, 05:54 AM
blackhatknight

though i argee the sentence was harsh and as other posts pointed out is it really?

My point is the law is nothing without teeth and people selected to up hold the law need to have that, while in an ideal world the actions of the police man would be judge too (to see if they where antaginisg) the point still remains on, only by givning our laws teeth, regardless of country in question, can we move towards a law abiding society

Edit to make more sense as pointed out by below post
10-29-2003, 06:24 AM
Busyman

Quote:

Originally posted by blackhatknight@29 October 2003 - 05:54
though i argee the sentence was harsh and as other posts pointed out is it really my point is the law is nothing without teeth and people selected to up hold the law need to have that, while in an ideal world the actions of the police man would be judge too if they where antaginisg the point still remains on by givning our laws teeth regardless of nationality can we move towards a law abiding society

:blink: