So the 1st amendment is no longer valid in CA?

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Yes it’s now fine but don’t you DARE call a transgender by the wrong pronoun or it’s off to the gulag with you!


California Law Allows Jail For Using Wrong Gender Pronoun Violations can be punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or "by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year."

There is certain logic to this change. HIV/AIDS is no longer the “instant” death sentence that it was in the 70’s and 80’s. In reality, properly treated, a person infected with the HIV virus will not die of it. It has become no more or less “dangerous” than Hepatitis or other forms of STD’s, that left untreated can kill, but properly treated, are not a death sentence. So, why single out one virus over others just as “deadly”?

Second, when these laws were passed, there was still a lot of misinformation regarding HIV/AIDs. Early on, you could not even sell a house where someone had died of AIDs/HIV. Now we know that, if you avoid sharing needles and not having unprotected sex with hookers (male or female) you are pretty safe. Why prosecute the hooker for a felony while the food service worker that infects you with Hep A in your salad because he or she did not wear gloves while preparing it gets by with a misdemeanor at best?

Add to that, the problem prosecutors face actually prosecuting the HIV/AID’s felonies. You are sitting around a “shooting gallery” sharing one needle with 7 drug users and you get upset when you find out one of your “buddies” just gave you AID’s? Or you call the police on the male prostitute you had unprotected sex with, because he “should have informed you”? There is the common law rule of caveat emptor…….

(Note: I am not condoning the act of uninformed infection, just merely pointing out the obvious)

Yeah, but look at all the fun we have in getting all in an uproar over their latest shenanigans.

You can't buy entertainment like that.

I'd say knowingly transmitting a lifelong disease, treatable or not, is worse that trying to smack somebody with a baseball bat or wave a gun around at them.

Felony assault. Not just HIV.....all non curable diseases.

Just because the disease itself is not fatal, doesn’t mean you won’t die earlier due to complications.

Also, I’m not a doctor. But I’d guess HIV disqualifies me from being any kind of donor (bone marrow, kidney) to my immediate family or my friends, or anyone else I choose to help.

Not to mention posthumous donation.

Ummmm shouldn't KNOWLINGLY transmitting ANY disease, you know be a felony ASSAULT???

I mean hey like 75% of folks shot with a handgun live so it's not exactly a death sentence so ........ amiright.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Yes it’s now fine but don’t you DARE call a transgender by the wrong pronoun or it’s off to the gulag with you!


California Law Allows Jail For Using Wrong Gender Pronoun Violations can be punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or "by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year."

Just when you think CA has reached the peak of insanity, they prove you wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:...Why prosecute the hooker for a felony while the food service worker that infects you with Hep A in your salad because he or she did not wear gloves while preparing it gets by with a misdemeanor at best?...

What if the food service worker intentionally passed Hep A to customers, is that the same as accidentally doing so?

quote:

Fear and misinformation about the disease’s potential to spread ran high

/sarc on
Boy, they sure got that wrong. What was all the fuss?
/sarc off

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
I'd say knowingly transmitting a lifelong disease, treatable or not, is worse that trying to smack somebody with a baseball bat or wave a gun around at them.

Felony assault. Not just HIV.....all non curable diseases.

Yep. And, comparing HIV and Hep A is laughable. If you're talking Hep B or Hep C, then you might have a case. But Hep A? It's a self limited infection.

By extension of California's logic, it should be, at most, a misdemeanor to shoot someone "a little bit."

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
You almost have to admire California's commitment to crazy. They are damn good at constantly one upping the last stupid thing they did. It's sad but incredible.

I agree. This place is full of fruits and nuts. However, for the remaining conservative minorities, we still enjoy some decent benefits. I doubt I'll retire here, but in the meantime I put up with the crap, keep my nose clean and push forward. Much like those of you in NY, MA, CT, WA etc.

This seemed straightforward at first glance, and I'd certainly be livid if not looking to feed someone to the wood chipper if they gave me HIV and didn't warn me they were infected beforehand, but as I thought about it more it seems *very* difficult to prove with any real certainty, but that makes it even more confusing because that's the opposite of what the supporters of this change are asserting (they call it draconian, suggesting wrongful cases).

(1) person A (the supposed infector of person B) either has HIV, or not.

Easy to prove.

(2) person A either had HIV before sexual contact with person B, or they didn't.

Not easy to prove, sans clear evidence of a prior positive diagnosis of person A, and clear evidence of exactly when the potentially infectious sexual contact between persons A and B occurred, and clear evidence that persons A and B definitely had sex on that occasion.

(3) person A either knew they had HIV before sex with person B occurred, or not.

Not easy to prove, sans clear evidence of both a diagnosis and sharing of the results. A diagnosis alone doesn't equal guilt, person A could be a carrier without symptoms and may have never gone back for their results (person A could be infected, tested, and not know).

(4) person A either warned person B of their infection beforehand, or they didn't.

Not easy to prove. Short of a recording of what happened between persons A and B on the day in question that covers every second they were together, it's never better than ones word vs another. No one but they two of them may ever know what was or wasn't said. And the burden of proof correctly falls to the prosecutor to prove A didn't warn B.

(5) person B either now has HIV after the alleged infected sex in question, or they don't.

Easy to prove whether or not they have it, not easy to prove when they got it, short of clear tests before and after the alleged act, and clear evidence of if/when persons A and B were together, if they even had sex (see above), whether other partners existed, and more.

(6) And person B either got the HIV specifically from person A, or they got it from another.

The virus that supposedly came from person A doesn't have a unique fingerprint, it looks like HIV, whether from person A, B, or C-Z. This point is especially difficult to prove.

Thus, without a very unlikely amount of time-stamped and otherwise nearly irrefutable evidence that answers all of the above questions and more, or simple confessions / trip ups, how would anyone be convicted of this crime, beyond circumstantially?

Again, the issue seems simple on the surface, but a proper conviction seems very unlikely.

So now what?

Short of catching them in the act, then subsequently proving all else, how would any prosecutor win a case like this? How would "the state" ever get the right guilty person?

Our only hope now is that Trump builds a wall around California to keep everyone in......

being an American is no longer considered to be desirable in California

There are so many reasons I will NEVER live in California. I don’t have to worry about the HIV thing as I am happily married, but still the concept is absurd!

quote:

You almost have to admire California's commitment to crazy.

Those are my thoughts as well. At least with the legislature. Full-on barking moon-bat crazy.

We've got some good people there, and I'm not going to paint them with the same brush.

But the law makers - yeah - that ship has sailed.

The libeRATS are doing everything in their power to make plenty of crimes no longer felonies. They're emptying the jails as fast as they can and pretty soon will no longer need the police. And 90% of the assholes on the sex offender registry will be coming off soon, with obvious plans to remove the other 10% sometime in the near future.

San Francisco is communist party headquarters. The tourists should stop coming so the city can implode.