Unarmed attacker, attacker has confirmed HIV/AIDs

[jcabin]

My question is this.
This is probably the only way you would know someone has HIV/AIDs.
(of course you want to minimize contact with every attacker in general)
Someone you know, a friend, a neighbor, come to you one day and tell you they have HIV/AIDs.

What is the legality of lethal force if someone you know who has HIV/AIDs attempts to attack you, bite you, scratch you?

[PA-Joe]

If they are not attaching you with an actual weapon then I would say none. Just becasue someone says they do doesn't make it truth. Also there is no really good history on how much exposure you need. Most people's immune system can protect them from a general one-time exposure.

[t1m0thy]

I know its a bit of a stretch but wouldn't that be considered a biological weapon?

[jcabin]

If they are not attaching you with an actual weapon then I would say none. Just becasue someone says they do doesn't make it truth. Also there is no really good history on how much exposure you need. Most people's immune system can protect them from a general one-time exposure.

Isn't that equivalent to someone with a knife saying they are going to slit your throat?

[SxRacer108]

Isn't that equivalent to someone with a knife saying they are going to slit your throat?

touche.....

[autotech6506]

as far as I know (i'm not a doctor) there needs to be blood to blood contact, you can't get it from spit. you can get it if you get "genital secretions" to blood contact or cut.

[R.Thompson]

I recall hearing of a couple of cases where someone with HIV/AIDS deliberately set out to infect other people.

In one case, a man deliberately had unprotected sex with women, without telling them he was HIV+, even though he knew.

In another case, IIRC, someone (can't remember if male or female, I suspect it was male), used a contaminated syringe (or threatened that the syringe was contaminated) as a weapon.

Unfortunately my google skills have failed me and I can't find references. I heard of both cases when I was back in the UK - the first case I'm sure was in the UK, the second I can't recall where it was.

In any case, both were considered aggrevated attacks, because they either knowingly put the life of another at risk, or (especially in the case of the second) there was a terroristic threat involved.


So I suspect that if a person who has told you they are HIV+ attacks you, knowing that you think they have HIV/AIDS because of what they told you, then it is aggrevated (therefore potentially life threatening). But if someone attacks you who you have no suspicion is/has HIV/AIDS then you cannot work on that assumption. Similar to a police officer needing RAS not just a hunch/feeling.

[djturnz]

OC Spray?..........

[Siggy]

...Also there is no really good history on how much exposure you need. Most people's immune system can protect them from a general one-time exposure.

What is meant by "general one-time exposure"? Exposure to the virus is exposure, plain and simple. And from everything I have always understood your immune system won't do anything against an exposure to the virus - you will always carry that virus. Whether or not you will end up with full blown AIDS and become ill/die are questionable and not fully understood, but you will still always carry the HIV virus and be able to spread it (through exposure...).

But regarding the original question, if someone says they have a potentially deadly communicable disease and then intentionally act in a way that could expose you to it then all self-defense means are completely acceptable, warranted and legit.

[adymond]

If they are not attaching you with an actual weapon then I would say none. Just becasue someone says they do doesn't make it truth. Also there is no really good history on how much exposure you need. Most people's immune system can protect them from a general one-time exposure.

Bolded is absolutely untrue. There is no requirement in the use of force statutes that requires the attacker to be armed. I can be in fear of serious bodily injury or death from several unarmed attackers or from one very large attacker. I was sucker punched and jumped by three guys. Cost over $55K in damage to my head and face, required surgery. Tell me that's not serious bodily harm.

ETA: I don't think HIV/AIDS would play into the use of force justification aside from emotionally affecting a potential jury. It would depend on who played the card better though. The defense could say it further compounded your fear of bodily harm and death or the prosecution could use it to show that you shot your friend because you are a homophobe and to further justify classification as a hate crime.