ebola in nyc

[Burning_Ember]

Shiloh, could you please cite the US Criminal Code as to what crime he committed that would be worthy of such a punishment? Laws exist for a reason, and I just don't see which law he broke. Laws exist so the Government can't make up punishments on the spot.

[ayin jade]

Shiloh, could you please cite the US Criminal Code as to what crime he committed that would be worthy of such a punishment? Laws exist for a reason, and I just don't see which law he broke. Laws exist so the Government can't make up punishments on the spot.

In the us, if someone has hiv and knowingly has unprotected sex they can be charged with a crime of something like assault. Although I cant cite the specific code, namely because I havent bothered to try and look it up, I assume something like that can be used to charge the doc. Knowingly putting the public at risk of a serious disease is a crime.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, could you please cite the US Criminal Code as to what crime he committed that would be worthy of such a punishment? Laws exist for a reason, and I just don't see which law he broke. Laws exist so the Government can't make up punishments on the spot.

 

There is no specific law on the books about infecting people with Ebola. 

 

But what is prosecutable in what he has done is known as culpability in putting others in danger.  I got this from a dictionary: 

 

Culpable

 

Blameworthy; involving the commission of a fault or the breach of a duty imposed by law.

 

Culpability generally implies that an act performed is wrong but does not involve any evil intent by the wrongdoer. The connotation of the term is fault rather than malice or a guilty purpose. It has limited significance in Criminal Law except in cases of reckless Homicide in which a person acts negligently or demonstrates a reckless disregard for life, which results in another person's death. In general, however, culpability has milder connotations. It is used to mean reprehensible rather than wantonly or grossly negligent behavior. Culpable conduct may be wrong but it is not necessarily criminal.

 

What we are talking about here is reckless endangerment.   It would be the same thing if you knew or suspected you had an STD and continued to engage in sexual activity. That is something that can be criminally prosecuted.

 

This doctor HAD to know when he started feeling ill that he needed to quarantine himself and get help.  He could not have known any different.   So this would likely be a case of reckless endangerment and he should be criminally prosecuted under the same legal codes that exist for those who engage in reckless endangerment with an STD. 

[Burning_Ember]

 

Shiloh, could you please cite the US Criminal Code as to what crime he committed that would be worthy of such a punishment? Laws exist for a reason, and I just don't see which law he broke. Laws exist so the Government can't make up punishments on the spot.

 

There is no specific law on the books about infecting people with Ebola. 

 

But what is prosecutable in what he has done is known as culpability in putting others in danger.  I got this from a dictionary: 

 

Culpable

 

Blameworthy; involving the commission of a fault or the breach of a duty imposed by law.

 

Culpability generally implies that an act performed is wrong but does not involve any evil intent by the wrongdoer. The connotation of the term is fault rather than malice or a guilty purpose. It has limited significance in Criminal Law except in cases of reckless Homicide in which a person acts negligently or demonstrates a reckless disregard for life, which results in another person's death. In general, however, culpability has milder connotations. It is used to mean reprehensible rather than wantonly or grossly negligent behavior. Culpable conduct may be wrong but it is not necessarily criminal.

 

What we are talking about here is reckless endangerment.   It would be the same thing if you knew or suspected you had an STD and continued to engage in sexual activity. That is something that can be criminally prosecuted.

 

This doctor HAD to know when he started feeling ill that he needed to quarantine himself and get help.  He could not have known any different.   So this would likely be a case of reckless endangerment and he should be criminally prosecuted under the same legal codes that exist for those who engage in reckless endangerment with an STD. 

 

That he HAD to know he was infected with Ebola is nothing but speculation. Fevers are symptoms of many common ailments. In addition, cases where someone had an STD an infected someone else had a few specific criteria that were met;

 

1) You knew for certain you had an STD.

 

2) Knowing for certain, you did not inform the person you engaged in relations with about it.

 

3) You engaged in relations knowing that you were going to infect that person through your actions.

 

None of those three things were met. In addition, there's no law against simply having a disease and being in public where other people could be infected. Otherwise people who had the flu, whooping cough, avian flu, pig flu, or any sort of serious infectious disease that could cause serious harm to others could be arrested in charged... But that's never happened to my knowledge.

 

You really have to cite the law here, otherwise you really don't have a legal basis for what you're saying. The dictionary definition for culpability isn't the United States Criminal Code.

[Guest LadyC]

whoa, BE, back up.

 

first of all, quit attacking shiloh. it was *I* who first said the dude should be prosecuted if others he had contact with came down with it.

 

secondly, shiloh did NOT say that this doctor "had to know he had ebola" so quit putting words in his mouth. shiloh said he had to know that he should quarantine himself when he started feeling ill. and that is a fact, not speculation. everyone in america now knows that if you have contact with an ebola patient you should be isolated for 21 days, and if you start feeling under the weather during that time you should be quarantined immediately until the test results come back. this man is a doctor, he knows better than the rest of us. 

 

that is reckless endangerment.

 

now if you want to attack someone about this issue, direct it at the one who said it (me), and not just someone that you have a known beef with. 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Shiloh, could you please cite the US Criminal Code as to what crime he committed that would be worthy of such a punishment? Laws exist for a reason, and I just don't see which law he broke. Laws exist so the Government can't make up punishments on the spot.

 

There is no specific law on the books about infecting people with Ebola. 

 

But what is prosecutable in what he has done is known as culpability in putting others in danger.  I got this from a dictionary: 

 

Culpable

 

Blameworthy; involving the commission of a fault or the breach of a duty imposed by law.

 

Culpability generally implies that an act performed is wrong but does not involve any evil intent by the wrongdoer. The connotation of the term is fault rather than malice or a guilty purpose. It has limited significance in Criminal Law except in cases of reckless Homicide in which a person acts negligently or demonstrates a reckless disregard for life, which results in another person's death. In general, however, culpability has milder connotations. It is used to mean reprehensible rather than wantonly or grossly negligent behavior. Culpable conduct may be wrong but it is not necessarily criminal.

 

What we are talking about here is reckless endangerment.   It would be the same thing if you knew or suspected you had an STD and continued to engage in sexual activity. That is something that can be criminally prosecuted.

 

This doctor HAD to know when he started feeling ill that he needed to quarantine himself and get help.  He could not have known any different.   So this would likely be a case of reckless endangerment and he should be criminally prosecuted under the same legal codes that exist for those who engage in reckless endangerment with an STD. 

 

That he HAD to know he was infected with Ebola is nothing but speculation.

 

I didnt' say he had to know he was infected.  I said he had to know that when he started feeling symptoms that he needed quarantine himself and seek treatment. 

 

Fevers are symptoms of many common ailments.

 

That may be the case, but in his case, given that he had been treating people in Africa with Ebola and given that there was a possibility that he could have been infected, he should have assumed the worst like Nina Pham did and take immediate action.  He failed to do so.  He was having symptoms and he chose to ignore those symptoms and continue having contact with other people and in doing so he put their lives in mortal danger.  

 

In addition, cases where someone had an STD an infected someone else had a few specific criteria that were met;

 

1) You knew for certain you had an STD.

 

2) Knowing for certain, you did not inform the person you engaged in relations with about it.

 

3) You engaged in relations knowing that you were going to infect that person through your actions.

 

None of those three things were met.

 

 

There is more to it than that.  The plaintiff, the person who is filing the complaint has the burden to prove that the person who infected them either did know or should have known that they were carrying the STD.  In New York,  it is not necessary to show that the person knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they had the disease.  They simply need to show that they should have known.  http://www.oshmanlaw.com/personal_injury/sexually-transmitted-diseases-std.html

 

In this case, when the doctor started having symptoms, he should erred on the side of caution and assumed he had Ebola and taken appropriate measures.  He was not living under a rock and should have known that the chances that his symptoms were resulting from infection of Ebola were reasonably high. 

 

 

In addition, there's no law against simply having a disease and being in public where other people could be infected.

 

It is considered criminal (reckless endangerment, criminal negligence) to have contact with other people while experiencing symptoms of a deadly disease, particularly when you have just returned from a part of the world where that disease is rampant.

 

 

Otherwise people who had the flu, whooping cough, avian flu, pig flu, or any sort of serious infectious disease that could cause serious harm to others could be arrested in charged... But that's never happened to my knowledge.

 

That is a silly comparison.

 

 

You really have to cite the law here, otherwise you really don't have a legal basis for what you're saying.

 

I don't need to cite a specific law.  I know how the law works in the US.  The fact is that reckless endangerment is a prosecutable offense and this doctor is clearly guilty.

[ncn]

Please debate the subject, not the person.

 

God Bless, 

 

Nigel. 

[Burning_Ember]

 

 

 

Shiloh, could you please cite the US Criminal Code as to what crime he committed that would be worthy of such a punishment? Laws exist for a reason, and I just don't see which law he broke. Laws exist so the Government can't make up punishments on the spot.

 

There is no specific law on the books about infecting people with Ebola. 

 

But what is prosecutable in what he has done is known as culpability in putting others in danger.  I got this from a dictionary: 

 

Culpable

 

Blameworthy; involving the commission of a fault or the breach of a duty imposed by law.

 

Culpability generally implies that an act performed is wrong but does not involve any evil intent by the wrongdoer. The connotation of the term is fault rather than malice or a guilty purpose. It has limited significance in Criminal Law except in cases of reckless Homicide in which a person acts negligently or demonstrates a reckless disregard for life, which results in another person's death. In general, however, culpability has milder connotations. It is used to mean reprehensible rather than wantonly or grossly negligent behavior. Culpable conduct may be wrong but it is not necessarily criminal.

 

What we are talking about here is reckless endangerment.   It would be the same thing if you knew or suspected you had an STD and continued to engage in sexual activity. That is something that can be criminally prosecuted.

 

This doctor HAD to know when he started feeling ill that he needed to quarantine himself and get help.  He could not have known any different.   So this would likely be a case of reckless endangerment and he should be criminally prosecuted under the same legal codes that exist for those who engage in reckless endangerment with an STD. 

 

That he HAD to know he was infected with Ebola is nothing but speculation.

 

I didnt' say he had to know he was infected.  I said he had to know that when he started feeling symptoms that he needed quarantine himself and seek treatment. 

 

Fevers are symptoms of many common ailments.

 

That may be the case, but in his case, given that he had been treating people in Africa with Ebola and given that there was a possibility that he could have been infected, he should have assumed the worst like Nina Pham did and take immediate action.  He failed to do so.  He was having symptoms and he chose to ignore those symptoms and continue having contact with other people and in doing so he put their lives in mortal danger.  

 

In addition, cases where someone had an STD an infected someone else had a few specific criteria that were met;

 

1) You knew for certain you had an STD.

 

2) Knowing for certain, you did not inform the person you engaged in relations with about it.

 

3) You engaged in relations knowing that you were going to infect that person through your actions.

 

None of those three things were met.

 

 

There is more to it than that.  The plaintiff, the person who is filing the complaint has the burden to prove that the person who infected them either did know or should have known that they were carrying the STD.  In New York,  it is not necessary to show that the person knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they had the disease.  They simply need to show that they should have known.  http://www.oshmanlaw.com/personal_injury/sexually-transmitted-diseases-std.html

 

In this case, when the doctor started having symptoms, he should erred on the side of caution and assumed he had Ebola and taken appropriate measures.  He was not living under a rock and should have known that the chances that his symptoms were resulting from infection of Ebola were reasonably high. 

 

 

In addition, there's no law against simply having a disease and being in public where other people could be infected.

 

It is considered criminal (reckless endangerment, criminal negligence) to have contact with other people while experiencing symptoms of a deadly disease, particularly when you have just returned from a part of the world where that disease is rampant.

 

 

Otherwise people who had the flu, whooping cough, avian flu, pig flu, or any sort of serious infectious disease that could cause serious harm to others could be arrested in charged... But that's never happened to my knowledge.

 

That is a silly comparison.

 

 

You really have to cite the law here, otherwise you really don't have a legal basis for what you're saying.

 

I don't need to cite a specific law.  I know how the law works in the US.  The fact is that reckless endangerment is a prosecutable offense and this doctor is clearly guilty.

 

You do have to cite a specific law. You're talking about sending someone to prison to make an example of them. To send someone to prison they must have broken a law. You can't invoke the justice system and then just make up what the crime and punishment are. 

 

In addition, you said to me regarding George Zimmerman that he is innocent until proven guilty under the law. The difference being George Zimmerman actually killed someone. Seeing as you are a person of principle, I assume you are going to consistently apply the same principles grounded in the Constitution to this doctor.

[Guest shiloh357]

You do have to cite a specific law. You're talking about sending someone to prison to make an example of them. To send someone to prison they must have broken a law. You can't invoke the justice system and then just make up what the crime and punishment are. 

 

 

 

Reckless endangerment IS against the law and is a prosecutable offense.   If you have reason to believe you are infected with a deadly disease that can be caught by other people, you have a responsibility to protect others from your disease.   This doctor had a very reasonable indication that his symptoms stemmed from Ebola.  He had a duty under the law to not endanger other people and he irresponsibly failed to do so.   He had been in an environment where Ebola was rampant, knew the symptoms, and when he started experiencing those symptoms instead of taking the necessary precautions, he chose to go out and engage in contact with other people including having intimate relations with His girlfriend.  None of that is in dispute.    What he did is against the law and falls under reckless endangerment and given that this is deadly, is criminal.  I am not making up any crimes or laws.  I am stating what is common knowledge about our justice system.

 

In addition, you said to me regarding George Zimmerman that he is innocent until proven guilty under the law.

 

This is not the same thing.  The facts are already known.  This not like the Zimmerman case at all.  None of the facts are in dispute, like they were in the Zimmerman case.  He has already admitted what he has done.  So as is usually the case, you're wrong.   No surprise there.

 

 

The difference being George Zimmerman actually killed someone. Seeing as you are a person of principle, I assume you are going to consistently apply the same principles grounded in the Constitution to this doctor.

 

George Zimmerman's action wasn't criminal.  Zimmerman had no intention to kill Martin.  He and Martin were struggling for his gun. Zimmerman's intent was to frighten Martin and keep his gun from getting into Martin's hands. Zimmerman wasn't on an agenda to kill a black man.  Nor was any reckless endangerment or criminal negligence in play on Zimmerman's part.

 

This is a different context.  This man knew what he was doing and he didn't want to be quarantined.  He took a reckless gamble and now others' lives are in danger because of him.  That is simply criminal and the man should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for what he has done.   That is the only correct way to look at this.

[Qnts2]

 

You do have to cite a specific law. You're talking about sending someone to prison to make an example of them. To send someone to prison they must have broken a law. You can't invoke the justice system and then just make up what the crime and punishment are. 

 

 

 

Reckless endangerment IS against the law and is a prosecutable offense.   If you have reason to believe you are infected with a deadly disease that can be caught by other people, you have a responsibility to protect others from your disease.   This doctor had a very reasonable indication that his symptoms stemmed from Ebola.  He had a duty under the law to not endanger other people and he irresponsibly failed to do so.   He had been in an environment where Ebola was rampant, knew the symptoms, and when he started experiencing those symptoms instead of taking the necessary precautions, he chose to go out and engage in contact with other people including having intimate relations with His girlfriend.  None of that is in dispute.    What he did is against the law and falls under reckless endangerment and given that this is deadly, is criminal.  I am not making up any crimes or laws.  I am stating what is common knowledge about our justice system.

 

In addition, you said to me regarding George Zimmerman that he is innocent until proven guilty under the law.

 

This is not the same thing.  The facts are already known.  This not like the Zimmerman case at all.  None of the facts are in dispute, like they were in the Zimmerman case.  He has already admitted what he has done.  So as is usually the case, you're wrong.   No surprise there.

 

 

The difference being George Zimmerman actually killed someone. Seeing as you are a person of principle, I assume you are going to consistently apply the same principles grounded in the Constitution to this doctor.

 

George Zimmerman's action wasn't criminal.  Zimmerman had no intention to kill Martin.  He and Martin were struggling for his gun. Zimmerman's intent was to frighten Martin and keep his gun from getting into Martin's hands. Zimmerman wasn't on an agenda to kill a black man.  Nor was any reckless endangerment or criminal negligence in play on Zimmerman's part.

 

This is a different context.  This man knew what he was doing and he didn't want to be quarantined.  He took a reckless gamble and now others' lives are in danger because of him.  That is simply criminal and the man should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for what he has done.   That is the only correct way to look at this.

 

 

You can never prove reckless endangerment. A patient is not contagious until they have a temperature. The doctor was taking his temperature twice a day. And as soon as he had a temperature, he notified the appropriate people. So, he followed all of the standard procedures concientiously. That is not reckless endangerment.  He did not take a reckless gamble but instead was very diligent and careful by taking his temperature twice a day and then notifying the correct people at the very first sign of a temperature. He did not leave his home once he had a temperature, or come into contact with people at all.

 

Zimmerman had no intention of killing Martin.  Dr. Spencer has no intention of infecting anyone with ebola. Spencer volunteered to go to Africa to help treat patients with ebola, so his intent was anything but passing on the disease.