What about your attacker's BLOOD? What are your rights?

O

ornithoid

New member
I got to thinking: only in Hollywood do gunshot victims not bleed.

If there comes a need to shoot an attacker, and his blood gets on you, and he is either killed or taken into custody alive, do you have any legal right to order tests on his blood to see if you were exposed to any infectious diseases?

And I'm not talking about someone sopping up the blood that's on the floor. I'm saying, is there a precedent or law that establishes your right to have a judge ORDER blood to be drawn from him, in hospital, for the purpose of checking what you've been exposed to? I'm talking about where you acted in justified self defense.

Anyone know?
 
I believe it is a state by state issue and is similar to victims of sex crimes looking for blood tests. I have heard about it but am not certain what I heard.
 
If all their blood does is get on your skin, you are at almost zero risk of any infections.

If it gets into an open wound or in your mouth or eyes you are at a slightly higher risk but still not a substantial one unless it is large amounts and your wound is fresh.
 
I say 10 of the 11 pints contained within the human body! Yep , Aids, Hepatitis and other nasty stuff! Got to check for it all with at least 10 indepent labs to prove it in court.:D
 
The humor is not lost on me, so thanks for that...

but I still remain wondering about whether you can compel a blood test if your criminal attacker's blood gets on you and you can express to a judge that you are concerned about exposure to diseases.

If there is no facilitated way to get that to happen, there needs to be -- and I don't care how remote the possibilities of infection are. I would want to know what was there to not get infected by! :mad:
 
If all their blood does is get on your skin, you are at almost zero risk of any infections.

If it gets into an open wound or in your mouth or eyes you are at a slightly higher risk but still not a substantial one unless it is large amounts and your wound is fresh.
Click to expand...

Blood is considered a dangerous biohazard for a reason. The actual transmission rate and successful infection rate may be low, but is at numbers high enough that I would gladly invest $300 a week on the lottery and win it on a regular basis if chances of winning the lottery were as good as the chances of infection on broken or abraided skin (1:300) or via entry through the eyes, mouths, nasal membranes (1:1000).

The average risk for HIV infection after a needlestick or cut exposure to HlV-infected blood is 0.3% (about 1 in 300). Stated another way, 99.7% of needlestick/cut exposures to HIV-contaminated blood do not lead to infection.

The risk after exposure of the eye, nose, or mouth to HIV-infected blood is estimated to be, on average, 0.1% (1 in 1,000).

The risk after exposure of the skin to HlV-infected blood is estimated to be less than 0.1%. A small amount of blood on intact skin probably poses no risk at all. There have been no documented cases of HIV transmission due to an exposure involving a small amount of blood on intact skin (a few drops of blood on skin for a short period of time). The risk may be higher if the skin is damaged (for example, by a recent cut), if the contact involves a large area of skin, or if the contact is prolonged.
Click to expand...
http://198.246.98.21/OralHealth/infectioncontrol/faq/bloodborne_exposures.htm

So you were in a scuffle and skinned up or you suffered a bullet or knife wound before subduing your attacker with your firearm, say at close range and you get misted by his blood, then yeah, you are at some very real risk of suffering an infection due to blood borne pathogens.

The risk may be statistically low, but the cost to treat will be statistically high and potentially terminal to you. Nobody is ever happy about having Hep, HIV, etc. There is nothing biologically good that comes from it.
 
Last edited:
very interesting question. I'll say, of all the subjects thatcome up here, and on THR every few months or so, I dontthink I've ever seen this one before.
So kudos for originality, if nothing else.

the answer from someone "in the know" should be interesting as well. I could see it easily going either way, but I would suspect the courts/law wouldsay you have the right to have the BG tested if theres a legit risk to you (ie blood actually got on you, instead of it just being on your carpet or something.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top