Man gets five years for urinating on policeman
March 13, 2001 11:12 PM   Subscribe

Man gets five years for urinating on policeman
ok so the guy is a scumbag. but five years?? seems a bit excessive don't you think?
posted by bwg (10 comments total)
I suppose they wanted to set a precedent because, well, it's such a damned good idea, they didn't want everyone to start doing it.
posted by pracowity at 11:22 PM on March 13, 2001

Yet another hazard of being a police officer. As if being shot at wasn't bad enough.
posted by Nick Jordan at 12:17 AM on March 14, 2001

This might be a "three strikes law" thing. Or maybe the judge just got tired of giving any more free rides to a guy with a criminal record that long.
posted by aaron at 1:05 AM on March 14, 2001

I reckon the mad guy in The Green Mile should have got 5 years for spitting at that guy then.
posted by wackybrit at 7:17 AM on March 14, 2001

20 prior convictions?

I suspect we're not getting the whole story, and this guy deserved exactly what he got.
posted by frykitty at 7:22 AM on March 14, 2001

perhaps, i just wonder if it's necessary. it seems off kilter.

drunk drivers kill people and get a couple years. dude pees on a cop and gets five.

it's really silly. give the guy 500 hours community service cleaning toilets or something.
posted by bwg at 11:31 AM on March 14, 2001

I suppose that it's consistent with an "assault with a deadly weapon" charge for biting someone or spitting on them.

Of course the guy has 20 priors, so theorhetically, he was pretty much asking for permanent residence Crass County prison...
posted by fooljay at 12:38 PM on March 14, 2001

i guess.... hehehe.

still, it would be funny if he had to clean toilets as punishment - especially if they were nasty.
posted by bwg at 12:46 PM on March 14, 2001

"Convicted of contact by bodily fluids." The mind boggles. I wonder if a cop punched you and you hurled on him if you could get convicted for the same thing. Oh well.

The link in the article to the Forum didn't take me to a related article, so I don't know what the guy was serving time for when he misted the officer, but I don't get the impression that the criminal is all that dangerous. A nuisance, sure.

The sentence seems excessive, but not because it's cruel to the perp. He probably deserves it. It seems excessive because it's going to cost a whole lotta dough to keep that guy in jail for another five years.

I'm not sure there's a solution to that, or if the cost of having that guy out is any less, or, indeed, if there's any chance such a dedicated recidivist would stay out for any length of time.

Still, if I could offer a modest proposal, why can't we re-institute transportation for such criminals. I know there are no more Australias left to develop, but that's not to say that there isn't some foreign country where we can dump these guys. Oh, sorry, I mean where we can give these guys a chance to lead productive lives in a new setting.

How about Kuwait? They owe us.

posted by anapestic at 1:16 PM on March 14, 2001

Anapestic: I think George Carlin hit that nail on the head about televising the chaos that would occur when the "gates were opened" at brief intervals. I know they beat up certain criminals in prison, but what about people that pee on....people? I suppose it's one of those unwritten rules I'm not too familar with :)

posted by samsara at 5:07 PM on March 14, 2001

« Older "Red vs. Blue" gets a whole lot worse   |   Courtney Love vs. Buddyhead Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments