DISQUS

doggril · 6 months ago

How does one imply that the question is even open to debate? The fact that the women were foolish to have unprotected sex with someone they clearly didn't know doesn't even begin to mitigate his guilt. If a victim's stupidity or misplaced trust were legitimate factors in determining guilt or innocence, then some crimes, like fraud, for example, wouldn't even exist.

John Aravosis · 6 months ago

Actually, I raised the question because I have heard this as a legitimate question of debate before. Namely, that your sex partner has just as much responsibility to ask you your status as you do to tell them. I.e., if you don't ask, you're just as much to blame, the argument goes. I'm sympathetic to the argument that you share blame by not asking, sure - though there is still I think a stigma to asking I think (hi, I like you, do you have HIV?), and the other person could just lie anyway. But sharing the blame does not meet that you literally share the blame - meaning, yes you're at partial fault for not asking, but to me the other person is a murderer for not telling.

liberaldemdave · 6 months ago

it's like blaming a murder victim because they didn't ask their killer if they had a gun.

mark · 6 months ago

YES, If you know you carry the virus and don't use a condom, you are knowingly infecting partners.

cripes · 6 months ago

Well, if the law prosecutes for HIV, the you have to apply it to all STD's and infectious diseases. Logic requires it. You can't just say ONLY HIV is subject to prosecution.

wingnut · 6 months ago

no you cant cripes, you can only apply it to STD's that result in death. HIV isn't just some STD, it's an STD that kills people. Herpes doesn't do that, chlamydia doesn't do that and as such why would you elevate them to the same level?

liberaldemdave · 6 months ago

after struggling for 15 years to survive, my personal opinion is that no sentence will be too harsh for this despicable person.

the notion that the women bear ANY responsibility because they simply didn't "ask" is extremely offensive.

Lolis · 6 months ago

definitely.

FN · 6 months ago

Man discovers his box of breakfast cereal is laced with rat poison. Invites 6 women over for breakfast each of which eats his breakfast cereal. The man doesn't mention that the cereal is poisoned and the women don't ask. Each woman dies of poisoning. A jury convicts the man of assault. Did the jury do the right thing?

Answer: no. Jury should have convicted the man of murder.

SoLeftImRight · 6 months ago

Come on. This is so stupid. SO "9 to 5" (great film). You said the man KNEW the cereal is poison. DONE and DONE. If he knew it AND served it, he's probably guilty of attempted murder...oh wait, 9 to 5 again!. This is not really very interesting, is it?

TheOriginalLiz · 6 months ago

Hell no! They should have strung him up by his nuts, given the women baseball bats and told them he was a pinata.

Gary · 6 months ago

I dreaded opening this thread to view the comments, so imagine my surprise because I was expecting very different responses.

Since I don't know this particular case, I can't really comment on it specifically. . .Did the jury do the right thing? Depends on what the charges before them were. If the DA charged assault, then they guy got the deserved sentence.

But IMOP . .6 women infected would deserve more than 6 charges of assault. . .I'd go for attempted murder on those 6 alone .. then add consecutive sentences for all the other women assaulted by this monster.

And yes, the sex of the victim should have nothing to do with any of it.

Reprehensible.

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

Just out of curiosity, what were you expecting?

Gary · 6 months ago

I was expecting more lame excuses blaming the victims and how they should have known better in the first place.

When a person has HIV or any other STD it is a responsibility to inform a partner before engaging in intimacy. . .PERIOD. Anything else is criminal, and as a gay man who lived through the worst of it, this behaviour makes my blood boil.

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

Ah yes, those imbeciles. I grew up hearing the horror stories. Anytime I see someone making those comments, I want to flog them.

Brad · 6 months ago

Personal orifice responsibility. Deal with it.

Isadore · 6 months ago

No the jury did not.

He should have been charged with attempted murder.

brb915 · 6 months ago

I just got back from a relief trip to Botswana doing simple work in an AIDS clinic in Gaborone. THis is a fairly modern, comfortable city folks, I'm not gonna lie, but the infection problem there is prevalent and growing.....nothing like the remote areas of squalor and hopelessness, but with meds, beds, and help available. I have never been more profoundly affected by the attitudes of these folk. Knowing they would die sooner than later, getting educated way too late and realizing the simple steps to avoid infection, and quietly accepting their fate with a dignitiy I can only hope to imitate. Being there, cleaning up, running simple errands, watching over children of the afflicted..........I will never forget it. Put the ass in the deepest darkest jailhouse you can find

Lauren1959 · 6 months ago

I would presume that anyone who had sex without a condom did not know that he had a communicable disease. Would I ask? Sure, but if he knew he should have told... jury is okay with me. He was a serial reckless endangerer.

Gary SF · 6 months ago

Did the jury do the right thing?

Hell yes!

cowboyneok · 6 months ago

I'm going to err on the side of it being the individual's responsibility to ASK the person if they are infected with HIV or STDs. If the person is asked and LIES then that is assault. If the person having sex with someone isn't responsible enough to ask, "Uh, do you have any STDs I need to know about?" in this day and age then they are idiots. Of course, they are idiots having sex without the condom in the first place if they didn't want to get STDs... but they need to at LEAST ask the person before the other person gets nailed for infecting others while having sex. If transmission rates for HIV were 100% every single time someone has sex then maybe, but it is harder to get HIV depending on someone's viral load and depending on what kind of sex they had. The decision to charge the guy with assault opens up a can of worms regarding guilt via transmission of other STDs, etc. If you are going to consent to allow someone to enter your body then you better be SURE you either: A. Make that person use protection or B. Know that person is germ / virus / bacteria FREE!

cowboyneok · 6 months ago

Hypothetical: Women has the hots for guy next door. She sleeps around quite a bit so its not unusual for her to have lots of sex with lots of guys. She never uses protection. Its not "her style." Guy next door is hemophiliac HIV positive. Women doesn't know this but shows up, disrobes in front of the guy and lays there on the floor begging him to have sex. Guy got drunk just before she comes over and neither of them discuss HIV status or any other conversation about STDs. They have wild sex. Woman gets HIV and finds out later he has HIV.

Question: Is the man guilty of assault with a deadly weapon?

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

If he's drunk then he has a perfectly valid diminished capacity defense.

cowboyneok · 6 months ago

oh, okay... hmmm... I'm just brain storming coming up with devil's advocate stuff here. ;)

RainbowPhoenix · 6 months ago

In any sexual encounter, everyone involved has a responsibility to ask. Anyone infected has a responsibility to tell. These women were not bright to do this, but he knowingly exposed them to a potentially fatal virus. If anything, convicting him of assault is far too lenient.

Jophus · 6 months ago

Just to play devil's advocate (I think he should be locked up), but why can't two consenting adults do what they please in the privacy of their own bedroom? By not asking his status she agreed to the terms and agreements.

Let him go?

FNReedie · 6 months ago

Because consent means there is an equal playing field of knowledge between the parties. In this case, there could not be consent when such a critical issue was not disclosed.

Jophus · 6 months ago

She had the knowledge that he could have it and failed to learn more because she didn't care. Bill O'Reily told me she was asking for it.

As long as those women don't have abortions (because I don't believe in murder) these women could die for all I care.

(Remember I'm just the role of the opposition. I just like getting into character)

SoLeftImRight · 6 months ago

You like getting into character a little too much! :) Consent doesn't have a common definition, that's one of the problems. The fact that people are so cynical that they will parse the definition of "safe"...but that's not a joke, test, inform, discuss. If you are under 30, even more important, because YOU are where this is getting worse and YOU are the ones that will die.

Jophus · 6 months ago

I get to say outrageous things that way.

Here's how I really feel, this guy is a degenerate. Lying by omission is still lying. However, these girls are responsible as well, with the information given. I think murder is a severe charge, especially when the victims may not die.

I would go with voluntary manslaughter. Is that even a charge?

SoLeftImRight · 6 months ago

PS, If you really think there is a level playing field, you're out of your mind! Did anyone ever factor in LYING? Keep it SAFE!

Francis · 6 months ago

After being infected 7 years now...I blame nobody but myself. I think some of these laws go way too far and they only worsen the stigma and keep people from not getting tested.

For instance an Iowa a man just got 25 years for not telling 1 person who ended up not even getting the virus.

http://www.thebody.com/content/art51841.html

So I'm a walking lethal weapon? What about Hep C? Or any other chronic disease. Yes HIV is a chronic disease folks.

John Aravosis · 6 months ago

Oh I'd definitely include any kind of hepatitis, herpes, or hell even the Swine Flu if you knew you had it and started making out with someone. I agree that the problem with this being an AIDS case is that it worsens the stigma, very true. But I'd be damn pissed, to put it lightly, if someone gave me herpes, knew it, and didn't bother telling me before we kissed.

cowboyneok · 6 months ago

Can you sue someone for assault for giving you herpes if they give it to you? If so, then I see the logic of the whole assault case. Otherwise, I think this whole assault via HIV is a slippery slope because it could be used for any number of transmissible illnesses. There is inherent risk in sex and everyone knows condoms diminish that risk to almost 100%. I'm thinking how many times genital warts, Hepatitis, Herpes, and every other imaginable STD gets transmitted because "someone doesn't tell." For instance, if I got herpes because I let a guy screw me who didn't tell me he had herpes, I would honestly think I was JUST as responsible as the guy that gave it to me because I chose not to have him "put a glove on it." I wouldn't sue the guy for "assault" when I ended up with "herpes butt." LOL!

wingnut · 6 months ago

uhhh, I think the clear difference is that you wont die from herpes. Yeah HIV is treatable, if you have the money or the insurance, what it you don't have either. Giving someone herpes is awful, but there's a clear difference in severity here when we're talking about something that wont end up kill a person like HIV will.

cowboyneok · 6 months ago

Well, you make a good point but I'm talking legal liability versus just being an idiot and fool or an unethical sociopath by spreading illnesses on purpose. The whole slippery slope thing has to be considered every time regarding legal liability and culpability.

What if someone went to a "sex party" and got an STD and then determined who it was that gave it to them, but chose not to wear a condom? Could that person sue the person who gave it to them? I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and I know these examples could be considered "far out" but, believe me, stranger things have happened!

Gary SF · 6 months ago

If you know that you have HIV you have 3 options: Practice safe-sex, abstain or disclose your status with your sex partner and discuss the issue. Pretty simple, no?

HIV/AIDS is can be a chronic disease if you have access to medication and health care and are diagnosed early enough in the course of the disease.

But don't kid yourself. For the majority of people in the world and for many in the US, HIV/AIDS is a killer - not the 'chronic disease' that you would like to think it is.

Jophus · 6 months ago

HIV is manageable and AIDS is not. AIDS is always a killer where HIV is not.

Gary · 6 months ago

WTF?

You need to get an education.

That's all I have to say Jophus.

SoLeftImRight · 6 months ago

WHATTHEFUCKAREYOUTALKINGABOUT?

Jophus · 6 months ago

HIV is a virus. AIDS is a condition. You can survive HIV. You cannot survive AIDS (at least it is super extremely unlikely that you will) and you can theoretically get AIDS without having HIV. Google it, it is too much to leave as a comment.

Robster · 6 months ago

Ah, no. AIDS is by definition, an HIV related condition. You can have a suppressed immune system without HIV, but it isn't AIDS.

Jophus · 6 months ago

I'm not going to argue here, but anyone reading this who might think Robster is correct, he is not. Get tested regularly. There is no reason you should have AIDS before you find out you are positive. That is a ridiculously long time.

Get tested and educated. You won't regret either.

Robster · 6 months ago

I'm not sure that we are arguing on that point. Yes, getting tested is important. But lots of people don't. Lots of people, especially heterosexual, non drug users, think they aren't at risk, and don't get tested until they get very sick.

Robster · 6 months ago

With good treatment, you can live quite some time after diagnosis of AIDS. You will always have the AIDS, but treatment adds years and perhaps decades, good years of life. Thats a good thing, because many people don't find out that they are infected until they have a low CD4+ count and a couple AIDS defining opportunistic infections.

FNReedie · 6 months ago

Sorry Robster --- but there is still no way to predict which folks with HIV will move on to AIDS. The meds work for some and not for others. It is not a chronic condition -- you can be infected and die in a very short period or live for years (they still do not know all of the mechanisms that lead to the progression). The good news is many people respond well to the drugs, but those that don't, die quickly.

Robster · 6 months ago

You CAN live for many years post-AIDS, in very good health, with treatment. Not WILL live. Several patients who absolutely have AIDS have lasted for several years, even without treatment, in relatively good health until a very nasty bout of PCP pneumonia.

Gary · 6 months ago

The difference is, Francis . . . that you know your status and are honest about it. . .would you engage in intimacy with another guy without engaging in a conversation first?

Yes, people have choices and options when they are fully informed. . .It is disgusting and reprehensible when a person subjects another to a lifetime of misery because sexual gratification is more important than honesty.

And unless you tell me that you've sat bedside with a friend dying while his parents won't come into the room for fear of catching "the gay plague" I seriously don't think you, or many of the people on americablog will ever understand how much this topic hurts.

Butch1 · 6 months ago

Guilty as charged, though I think some form of an attempted murder charge should have been levied against him, especially, if he knew he was HIV+ and didn't care.

bamjaya · 6 months ago

Hell to the yeah is he guilty. If he knows he is positive, he owes every partner the choice of doing it with or without a condom.

I hope his dick falls off. And his kidneys fail.

Indigo · 6 months ago

Guilty as charged.

Btalk314 · 6 months ago

YES, and he's lucky they didn't charge him with attempted murder.

Rev_Sacrilege · 6 months ago

What a sleazy son of a bitch. Let's get medieval and castrate the guy.

Wait, didn't all the Christians say that HIV was a gay disease, spread by degenerate homosexuals? Guess they were wrong.

mardod · 6 months ago

I'm curious what was the guy's defense? At what point did he realize he had it? Did he tell anyone?

Sifu · 6 months ago

Incarceration should be about protecting people, not punishment. In this case he is a sociopath and threatens lives untold. So consecutive sentences for murder seems about right. This is not a safe person to have free in society.

leathersmith · 6 months ago

there is no excuse for not telling people your status

too many want raw sex and don't seem to care anyway

SoLeftImRight · 6 months ago

If you want "raw sex" you should be assumed to be HIV+ or somehow desire that status. Not that that is an excuse for an actual conversation, but I'm just sayin' .... that is out ther.

JustAGuy · 6 months ago

John provides no references, but I think he is referring to this story.

Also, here.

-S

John Aravosis · 6 months ago

Sorry, was running out to dinner, forgot the link. Doh. http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Jury-Decides-F...

Robster · 6 months ago

Is this the Australian case? That guy's defense was that HIV didn't exist, and he got a bunch of crackpots to defend him.

He lost.

Danton · 6 months ago

A guy knows he has bubonic plague. Guy proceeds to birthday party. Guy is sniffling and says he has a slight cold. Guys hugs friends. Friends hug guy back. Twelve people develop bubonic plague; four die.

Guy is guilty as charged.

akd · 6 months ago

Anyone infected has a responsibility to tell, whether or not asked. There is no responsibility to ask whether somebody is infected with a spreadable, life altering, chronic and potentially fatal disease... it sure would be the smart thing to do, but also demonstrates a level of mistrust that might be unlikely to be demonstrated to somebody that you are about to have sex with.

Saying that everybody has a responsibility to ask whether sexual organs are about to be used as an infection agent is like saying that everybody has a responsibility to ask their hosts for dinner whether they will be poisoning them tonight.

monkey · 6 months ago

I am of the belief that if you are having sex with someone, no matter who, you should assume they have AIDS and every other diseases as well. This means, protect yourself, take responsibility for your own health, your own body. How do you know if the other person is telling the truth? People lie.

Gary · 6 months ago

Monkey you are correct in one respect. Protect yourself .Take responsibility for your own health. But don't assume anything. . .ask outright.

Bubbles · 6 months ago

That makes sense.

Then again, just say "no" to disease. Or better yet, just say "no" to sex.

Not always realistic. Some one f*cks you that knows they are infected has to have a duty to, at the very least, use a condom.

If it's been a long time since someone has had sex, they may view it almost as a once in a life time moment. The analysis and math get thrown out the window - where as the frequent fornicator is likely to be a little more circumspect. I know plenty of people who got a women pregnant the first time they had sex. Some very, very, very smart people - weren't thinking.

The people who have sex all the time are smarter about it. The one timers are often riding the thrill, and so, are not thinking - if stopping to put a condom on was romantic or thrilling you'd see it more often in the movies. If you've got HIV you more likely to be someone have sex more often anyway - so you have a bigger burdern.

An interesting study would be one where a person said they had a disease or were HIV + and then their partner proceeded to have (protected or unprotected) sex with them anyway. As Humphrey would say, "it's poor salesmanship". So I'm not sure how effective placing the burden on a sex partner would be.

cowboyneok · 6 months ago

BINGO! People LIE! Therefore, ALWAYS protect oneself and take personal responsibility for it. If someone lies about it THEN I can see that person getting the book thrown at them.

stefanzo · 6 months ago

Yes - it's like he knowingly hit them in the face with a slow-moving bat, with major impacts on lifestyle and health.

Justin Pugh · 6 months ago

Yes,

Here in South Carolina it is a felony punishable up to 10 years and no more than $5000 in fines for the crime. It is criminal transmission of HIV and it is taken very seriously here in South Carolina.

Gary · 6 months ago

so in SC it should be 60 years and $35k. . that's something, but nothing like the sentence the victims have to live with.

pricknick · 6 months ago

No brainer John. Yes.

KISSman · 6 months ago

Absolutely.

This is a man who knowingly wrecklessly endangered these people or worse, acted with an intent to kill these women. Now, are the women foolish for having unprotected sex with him? Of course! They likely willingly participated in the act and anyone who has unprotected sex without knowing the other person's status is rolling the dice with HIV and other STDs.

Still, he should rot in jail for doing what he did because he knew what he was doing.

Trinu · 6 months ago

Yes. Because condoms don't completely eliminate the risk of transmission (that of course DOESN'T mean they aren't a very effective way to protect oneself from STDs), I would support criminalizing this kind of behavior even if condoms were used (although with a much lesser sentence).

Ninong · 6 months ago

Yes, the guy was clearly guilty of something. He knew he was HIV+. Should someone who is HIV+ be required to inform prospective sex partners? At the very least, he should have used a condom.

This is not the first case like this. Each state seems to take a different approach but I believe the perp is usually convicted of something.

Didn't some women sucessfully sue Michael Vick over herpes?

annatopia · 6 months ago

i'll chime in since this is a case in my backyard and i've been following it.

the jury did the right thing. they didn't give him the maximum sentence but what they did give him will essentially be a life sentence. i agree with the "assault with a deadly weapon" charges but think that attempted murder should've been added.

by all accounts, this guy is a total douchebag. he saw himself as some sort of lothario, seducing women left and right, and has been a promiscuous individual for a long time. i also remember reading a media account of him at some point where it was pointed out that the guy didn't believe he could spread the virus through unprotected sex. he thought he was immune from spreading it, so he didn't bother to disclose his status to any of his sexual partners.

a total scumbag, now rotting in jail where he belongs.

watchington · 6 months ago

Absolutely NOT. HIV is not a fatal disease. Treating people as if they are murderers simply for having a disease is absurd. What about Hep C?

Why is HIV always demonized? Because people associate it with gays.

lilybart · 6 months ago

Yes.

jiminportlandoregon · 6 months ago

No, the jury did not do the right thing. Once again, a jury has decided that the "victim" can abrogate any and all responsibility for his/her actions. If one wishes to engage in anonymous sex, to be safe, one should simply assume that everyone is HIV positive and proceed from that standpoint. If one chooses to throw caution to the wind, that person should be responsible for their own consequences. If this were rape, I would feel differently, however, for consensual sex, each of us is responsible for our own well being.

Valentine Frey · 6 months ago

Add me to the list of people who are made nauseous that anyone's even bringing up a "responsibility to ask." These women didn't ask "Do you have AIDS?" before they slept with him for the same reason that no sane person asks their babysitter "Are you a child-molester?" The underlying assumption of the people making the but-she-didn't-ask defense seems to be that a person who will blithely have unprotected sex when they know they have AIDS will recoil in horror at the prospect of telling an untruth. Somewhere there may be a sociopath with an interesting obsessive/compulsive hang-up about always telling the truth if it's Tuesday and the moon is full, but I'd suggest that this sort of thing is less than common.
A person gifted with perfect insight into human nature recognizes a psychopath before they have a chance to do any damage, but how does this fact exonerate the perpetrator from culpability? This is the Mickey Mouse logic that says George Bush isn't culpable for war crimes because after all, he was elected (he wasn't actually, but that's another issue).

Ted · 6 months ago

The irony here is that he will probably get better health care in prison than he would have otherwise, even if he had insurance. He'll probably get better health care in prison than his partners/ victims will too. Our society will let millions of citizens go without health care, but if you are a convicted, incarcerated criminal you are well looked after.

doctressjulia · 6 months ago

YES.

doctressjulia · 6 months ago

...I do, agree with the attempted murder, or some kind of murder charge. This makes me sick and very sad.

offspring · 6 months ago

it doesnt matter if they asked him or not or used condoms or not, he knowingly spread a disease that kills period

mark · 6 months ago

WHY the hell over 25 years into this deadly pandemic is this EVEN a question?
EVERYONE knows what is safer sex, just DO IT!
I've had the virus 24 years, and it's NEVER been passed on to ANY other partner, and I've had long term relationships with HIV negative men who are still negative.

mark · 6 months ago

While it is the HIV+ man's fault of spreading a virus he knew he carried, the women SHOULD be protecting THEIR bodies, as a matter of course.

The Gay Species · 6 months ago

What about, "Do No Harm or Injury," the Universal Moral Imperative (flunk the biblical stuff) is not understood by the hypocrites, if gaybashed, would want justice?

whomod · 6 months ago

Absolutely.

This is why the idea of casual sex gives one pause. Some people just have no sense of personal responsibility.