Peeing on People and Prison


The always informative Jonathan Turley tips us off to a tale of a man, Jerome Kenneth King-zio, who decided to urinate on a fellow passenger during a flight from Los Angeles to Honolulu. (source).

While I find the story shocking, I find it more shocking that Turley thinks that Mr. King-zio’s sentence was too light. He got three weeks in jail for assault.

I’m not saying that he should have gone un-punished. Some time in the clink is appropriate, and the sentence seems proportional to the crime. Yes, getting peed on is pretty freakin’ nasty. The victim had every right to be pissed off angry. I just question how long Prof. Turley thinks would have been appropriate.

Frankly, I think that King-zio deserved a royal ass-kicking. But, in terms of the harm he cause to the victim, I can’t really imagine that it did anything more than ruin her day and require her to change and wash her clothes. Provided King-zio was healthy, his urine would have been sterile upon exiting the body. It was quite unlikely that there would be any health effects from being peed on. And, it won’t likely stain her clothes. Aside from the “ew gross” factor (which is pretty freakin’ high), King-zio did the victim little more permanent harm than he would have if he had spilled a drink on her.

In contrast, lets look at some hypothetical harms she may very well have suffered on the same flight. I’m sure that some hacking sick passenger spewed their live virus samples into the air inside the germ tube we call an airplane. Similarly, as soon as she exited the airport, I’m sure some dirty prick will be standing outside smoking a cigarette — billowing carcinogens into the victim’s face. Hell, even someone farting next to her would cause poo particles to exit the farter’s ass, waft through the air, and then settle inside her sinus cavities. Yes, every time you smell a fart, that is poo entering your head.

So, maybe Turley needs to lighten up a wee bit.

10 Responses to Peeing on People and Prison

  1. Windypundit says:

    I think intent matters a lot here. If he intentionally targeted her, then it seems an awful lot like a sexual assault. I mean, if he’d jerked-off onto her, we’d take that as a sexual assault, wouldn’t we? Peeing isn’t that much different in this context.

    On the other hand, if he was just shitfaced and decided he needed to pee right then and there, with no clue what we was doing, I don’t see any reason to take this too seriously.

  2. Hugo B says:

    WindyPundit is correct. Intent/condition of pee-er is vital to determine.
    My extremely drunk brother once awoke (not exactly), got out of bed, walked around the room, whipped out, and peed on his wife. A sharp elbow to the nuts is what he got…as the victim should absolutely have delivered to this asshole.

  3. I agree on the intent part. But for me three weeks seems about right for this flagrant a transgression of the social compact. It’s hard enough to sit on a plane nowadays, so many have forgotten simple rules of social interaction. Even if he was drunk out of his gourd, I would have land him in jail for a few days.

  4. mike says:

    Personally, I dislike intent being a factor. Getting Peed on is getting Peed on. If your drunk aren’t you still responsible for you actions? In the same vein I hate ‘hate’ crime laws.

    Still 3 weeks seems reasonable, but I would personally probably opt for the immediate “royal ass kicking”. Hopefully the sentance for the royal ass kicking is < 3 weeks.

  5. I think that Royal Ass Kicking PLUS three weeks is appropriate too. The good old fashioned Beat-Down does need a place in our law.

  6. Rogier says:

    I’m disappointed that no one’s cracked a golden-shower joke yet. C’mon people, we can do beter than that!

    Anyway, pretty freakin’ nasty indeed — the getting-pissed-on part, not the sentence. I have no problem with the sentence, seems about commensurate with the vile crime to me.

    Spilling a drink on someone, or coughing, is not anywhere NEAR the same. I mean, if you had the choice and you were the intended victim, would you opt to be doused by a gin-and-tonic, or by the content of some stranger’s bladder? Honestly now.

  7. Windypundit says:

    mike, Getting Peed on is NOT always the same as getting Peed on. There’s a difference between (a) an aggressive asshole who accosts you in the street, (b) a drunk jerk who has no idea what he’s doing, and (c) an incontinent person in a hospital.

    It’s like the difference between running up to a stranger and knocking them to the ground v.s. accidentally backing into someone in a crowd and knocking them over. Same physical effect, but only the first is really a crime.

  8. What if you pee on someone just because you think it will be funny? I did that to a friend of mine in a bar. They had one of those trough urinals, and I wanted to fuck with him, so I just turned and pissed on his leg. He was kinda annoyed, but wasn’t able to retaliate because I waited til he was done to do it. Lulz were had by all and then we got thrown out of the bar.

  9. mike says:

    Certainly (c) would be different. There’s the whole voluntary vs involuntary aspect which concepts seem to be prevalant in the law as well. However (b) was responsible for getting drunk and should be liable for the consequences. Still I think the real example that annoys me is the difference between your (a) and say (d) some guy who just thinks it will be funny but is mistaken. How do you show the difference between (a) and (d) in court? The difference is inside the asshole’s head and doesn’t seem provable.

%d bloggers like this: