Fear of aids

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Thu Feb 22, 2001 10:48 pm

On a case I am working on, a related component is that a person was an inpatient at a local hospital, that the person was given an injection by a nurse, that subsequent to the injection the nurse accidentally punctured herself with the same needle.

The patient was required to submit to blood borne disease testing, including aids.
Patient was told that this testing was a legal requirement. Any comments?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Unfortunately there are cases in Massachusetts where the courts have held that the mere inadvertent visability [sic] of a concealed firearm is enough to cause apprehension and bring forth the charge of "brandishing".

I remember back in the seventies, during the oil embargo, some gas station attendants were wearing holstered pistols in plain sight to discourage crass behavior and outright violence at the pumps. Those guys were publicized in the papers and no arrests were made. Also, in some gun shops, clerks pack guns in plain sight.

Any violations here?

What if the person who inadvertently flashes a concealed weapon is a plain-clothes officer shopping at the local market on his way home off duty?

Will he be judged by a different standard than the ordinary citizen?

------------------
Van Canna

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Thu Feb 22, 2001 11:00 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

In order to recover there has to be a cause of action based on available tort law, and as Panther has pointed out there is a long road to haul in getting evidence of cause and effect in these cases.

Interesting. Say you are HIV positive. What duty do you owe to a person about to be engaged in a sports action or self defense action where no lethal response is indicated?

And if you become contaminated by a sparring opponent's blood or by a street assailants' , would you really feel okay by continuing to have sexual relations with your wife?

Do you really feel comfortable that hard arm rubbing and pounding carries no risk of blood contamination?

------------------
Van Canna

Alan K · Post by **Alan K** » Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:55 pm

I agree that the pendulum has swung too far as to what consitutes "brandishing" in the case of a concealed firearm. The permit with the endorsement to carry for protection and life of property in Massachusetts does not prevent concealment.

If a man is walking down the street, with valid permit, and he unbuttons his jacket on a hot day, I cannot conceive this as being a threat or brandishment.

As Van pointed out, during the 70's and long before that, it was common to see holstered weapons displayed.

The current trend of anti-gun mania persists, and as is quite evident today, political and social proponents can sway the balance of power and influence what we perceive are our freedoms.

Lay persons are now well aware of this by the now famous 5 to 4 split decisions of the Supreme Court.

I am sure that Panther is well aware of the law being infuenced by legal fictions employed to create an end result when all else fails.

To Van, sensei

As for the right of the gun dealer who on his own premises and properly permitted carries holstered a non concealed firearm, why not.

Are his customers their to buy children's clothing or bibles?

I think that in Massachusetts, the now infamous rule of the "reasonable man" would rule out brandishment.

Creative thinking by prosecutors have enlarged the "dangerous weapons" category.

A recent case in Massachusetts ruled that a concrete sidewalk was a dangerous weapon!

Well they may have been justified under the circumstances of the perp having slammed the victim's head into it repeatedly.

But was the weapon the concrete or the perp's hands?

The cases on concealed weapons in Massachusetts have escalated in recent years to the extent that the pocket parts of the statute books recent cases reported exceed the original text. Oh well, they will soon reprint the updated book and send it to the office for about $60.00.

If I had more time I would make a list of the categories found to be in the dangerous weapons class in this Commonwealth.

Alan K

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Fri Feb 23, 2001 4:28 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Van Canna:

The patient was required to submit to blood borne disease testing, including aids.
Patient was told that this testing was a legal requirement. Any comments?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As UN-PC as this will sound... the patient obviously didn't claim protected status based on sexual orientation. Seriously, even the hospital can't make you have any tests done that you don't voluntarily agree to. IMNSHO, the patient was successfully bluffed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I remember back in the seventies, during the oil embargo, some gas station attendants were wearing holstered pistols in plain sight to discourage crass behavior and outright violence at the pumps. Those guys were publicized in the papers and no arrests were made. Also, in some gun shops, clerks pack guns in plain sight.

Any violations here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No violations. IF someone is properly permitted and given permission to carry openly (either personally or as part of the job) on a business owner's private property, then that can't be construed as brandishing. Just as one can openly carry in one's own home and on one's own property without it being brandishing. (Threatening someone to get off of your property while openly carrying could get you in trouble in this bastion of Socialism, but merely carrying can't... yet.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

What if the person who inadvertently flashes a concealed weapon is a plain-clothes officer shopping at the local market on his way home off duty?

It's happened. As I've said before, I have a number of friends who are LEOs. When they carry concealed (plain-clothes or off-duty) they have a propensity for being much less careful about it than us mere private citizens. One even told me once that he wanted people to know what that "bulge" was. So... One evening a group of us went out for dinner and the LEO in the group is careless. His (not-very-well) concealed weapon became visible while we were waiting in the bar area for our table. A woman patron went to the management (unbeknownst to us) in a complete panic that there was a "man with a gun" there! A while later, still waiting to be called for our table, a pair of on-duty officers approached us in the bar. Their first words were, "keep your hands where we can see them". (talk about embarassing...

) My LEO friend asks what the problem is and they ask him if he's got a gun... He says, "of course, I'm a cop" and very gingerly gets out his badge. Management was told that we were "OK", but we were asked to leave anyway since it had caused another patrons uneasiness. We did.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Will he be judged by a different standard than the ordinary citizen?

With nothing other than personal opinion to base this on (and since my legal source for actual cites and cases is currently unavailable at the GCAB meeting), I would say most definitely YES! It was my impression that had it been a private citizen that night in the restaurant, the person would have been in the proverbial "deep do-do".

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Fri Feb 23, 2001 4:39 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Van Canna:
Interesting. Say you are HIV positive. What duty do you owe to a person about to be engaged in a sports action or self defense action where no lethal response is indicated?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Legally? None as far as I know.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

And if you become contaminated by a sparring opponent's blood or by a street assailants' , would you really feel okay by continuing to have sexual relations with your wife?

It depends...

With a street assailant... NEVER... NO way, no how!

With a sparring opponent... depends on if and how well I know the person... Generally, I'd say the same precautions are in order, but if I know the person, I'd be more likely to make the decision based on what I know about the person and that might very well lead to a comfort level that is acceptable to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Do you really feel comfortable that hard arm rubbing and pounding carries no risk of blood contamination?

Do people break the skin when they do arm-pounding and arm rubbing?!?

Ouch...

Alan K · Post by **Alan K** » Mon Feb 26, 2001 8:53 pm

On Arm Rubbing and Pounding (Kotekekai)

GEM, sensei brought up this subject at class last Saturday morning, and he believed that each partner should, when sleeves are rolled up, observe for open sores or cuts.

You can make your choice at this time.

As to the people that you know well at the dojo you can make an informed judgment.

My own assessment is to err on the safe side of someone you don't really know well.

As a practical matter I don't recall getting cut or abraided in arm rubbing and pounding.

A few good bruises maybe.

Even then it shouldn't come to that if training follows the rules.

However, it has happened to me several times over the years, that accidental blood can be drawn in pre-arranged kumite or bunkai.

Even then it did not not infuse my partner or vice versa.

Best of my memories are that it might be a fingernail or overly agressive wauke block and grap resulting in a pinching or Gi chafing abbrasion, drawing some blood and confined primarily to the Gi.

(tough stuff to wash out)

The same statement can be made for sparring even with protective gear (Full Highgear excepted).

Alan K