They're Trying to Call HIV-Positive People Bioterrorists?

The body of a 44-year-old man is a bioterror weapon, according to a Michigan county prosecutor who is charging Daniel Allen, with "possession or use of a harmful biological device" for biting his neighbor during a neighborhood fight. Allen is African American and HIV-positive; his case is believed to be the first in the nation where prosecutors are linking anti-terrorism laws to an individual's HIV infection.

www.alternet.org...

This story is mind boggling to say the least. How far are they going to take this terrorism thing? Pretty soon everyone who commits a crime of any kind is going to be labeled as a terrorist.

The prosecutor in this case even went as far as to call this man a WMD!

Good thread TV Nation

Last time I checked biting someone was assault...But prosecuting this guy with "possession or use of a harmful biological device" is insane...What the hell is the world coming to ?

It sounds like a prosecutor with an over-inflated sense of self importance to me I hope I'm right and its not the start of something far more sinister and dangerous

reply to post by Retrovertigo



I agree the man should have been charged with assault if anything and it is still not clear if the case could just be self defense.

I guess the defendant claims it was a hate crime which would not surprise me in the least if his neighbor knew of his sexual orientation.

Later on in the article there are examples of how people with HIV have been targeted and slapped with asinine charges. It's sad because these people did not ask for HIV and when they are put in situations that many of us face they are considered criminals or depicted as having ulterior motives.

There are cases of people with HIV purposely infecting others.

I call it hillbilly bioterrorsim.

Now this guy bit another person. This guy new he had HIV and still bit him. To me it sounds as if this guy wanted to infect the person he bit.

He has a deadly virus, he uses that deadly virus on another person.

Sounds a little like bioterrorism.

Of course not everyone with HIV is doing this and are trying to lead as normal of life as possible.

It's all in the semantics with this one. Michigan has been a little wierd with their phrasing and terminology as long as I can remember. Anyway, the official explaination for the charges is this: HIV+ blood is a harmful dangerous substance (which is hard to disagree with); the act of biting someone turns the blood into a weapon. The charges have changed, and the prosecutor offered a plea for 10 years felony assault with intent to great bodily harm less than murder. Which pretty much fits the circumstances perfectly.

My guess is that he was booked under the terror law, then offered the assault charge, and will eventually get convicted of simple assault if he fights and loses. Michigan will always book you on the worst charge possible, then gradually and repeated make offers to lower the charge until you finally go for a plea bargain. The prosecutors here seem to try to avoid a jury trial at all costs.

Here is a more current news story: Accused HIV-as-Terrorism suspect refuses plea deal

reply to post by Miracle Man



I see where you are coming from but it is hard to say for sure that he was trying to inflict the man with HIV. Also if we was defending himself then his attacker is SOL for starting the altercation in the first place and biting may have been the only way the man could have defended himself if he felt he had no other way.

Also it is nearly impossible to get HIV through a bite because the virus cannot be transmitted though saliva, But that has not stopped authorities from charging HIV positive people with attempted murder for spitting on people so who knows.