HIV positive man claims he had sex with thousands of people

[spacebarsux]

http://www.wwmt.com/news/county-1399944-hiv-kent.html

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/12/man_trying_to_infect_others_wi.html

[Rockin]

He's butt ugly...i doubt he had sex with "thousands"

[Buckmark]

http://www.wwmt.com/news/county-1399944-hiv-kent.html

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/12/man_trying_to_infect_others_wi.html

Here we go again.  Demonize an HIV+ person and make it unlawful for them to have sex w/o disclosure.  Talk about putting a big wet blanket on efforts to raise awareness of HIV, promote testing, and get people people to practice safer sex.      Why don't we criminalize the failure to disclosure other STIs like syphilis, herpes, etc.?

What's your opinion on this, spacebarsux?

(Thousands of people?      Geez, he must be tired.)

[denb45]

(Thousands of people?      Geez, he must be tired.)

He's about as SCARY LOOKING as most of the HIV-queers right here in ABQ, I wouldn't touch any of them with a 20 foot-pole 

[mikeyb39]

 i see that they immediayely assume he has a mental illness problem  you dont havr to be crazy to enjoy sex 

[mecch]

He looks like the joe behind you in line anywhere usa. He doesnt look scary. 

Denby are you being sarcastic, by the way??  If not, you seem to have created and demonized a group of HIV+ people in a similar way to the way general culture and the law can demonize ALL HIV+ people.   HIV+ people have enough challenges, we don't need a pecking order amongst ourselves.

[Cliff]

Yeah, he's not that bad.

[Lugzsoo]

Yea. I dont know about this like I'm on the both side I see it but on the other no. Because if I was date I wouldnt but on the other I have a wife so we did it with out a condom so I had to keep her safe that's why so if I went to keep her safe wont I do it for other people I have sex with .mmmmmmm damn I'm confused.

[buginme2]

1.  Notice how 95% + of theses newsworthy cases involve men infecting women?  Rarely does it make the news if it's a man infecting another man. 

2.  Agree 100% with Bucmark.  This criminalizing of HIV pos people just screams rediculousness.

[denb45]

He looks like the joe behind you in line anywhere usa. He doesnt look scary. 

Denby are you being sarcastic, by the way??  If not, you seem to have created and demonized a group of HIV+ people in a similar way to the way general culture and the law can demonize ALL HIV+ people.   HIV+ people have enough challenges, we don't need a pecking order amongst ourselves.

  Oh Mecchie, I'm always being sarcastic in one way or another, if you haven't guessed that by now
ok sarcasm is off now, back to the topic 

[denb45]

i see that they immediayely assume he has a mental illness problem  you dont havr to be crazy to enjoy sex

  oh come on now, don't you get what really going on here, most religious fanatics view all of us with teh AIDS as scary monsters, it's what motivates them & keep what they believe in ALIVE, by spreading FEAR  and un- truths throughout the AIDS community, I thought the whole news story was so anti-aids myself

[denb45]

Yeah, he's not that bad.

Right

[spacebarsux]

Here we go again.  Demonize an HIV+ person and make it unlawful for them to have sex w/o disclosure.  Talk about putting a big wet blanket on efforts to raise awareness of HIV, promote testing, and get people people to practice safer sex.      Why don't we criminalize the failure to disclosure other STIs like syphilis, herpes, etc.?

What's your opinion on this, spacebarsux?

(Thousands of people?      Geez, he must be tired.)

I agree with your views with the caveat that if, and only if, a person who knows his or her own HIV status, acts with the intention of transmitting HIV and inflicting harm, and does in fact transmit it- then criminalization may be justified as long as a court can prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone had such 'malicious intent'.

I personally intensely dislike criminalization of HIV but I don't think any court in any country is going to let someone like the person I described above walk without getting punished.

I stated my views on HIV criminalization in a recent thread. http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=41084.0

 

[spacebarsux]

1.  Notice how 95% + of theses newsworthy cases involve men infecting women?  Rarely does it make the news if it's a man infecting another man. 

Yes. I have thought about this as well.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that the MSM all over are 'generally' more willing to take onus of any negative fallout resulting from sex given the history of the pandemic being so closely associated with MSM and that even today in terms of percentages of new infections- gay men are the most affected group ??

But such a double standard can be quite counterproductive and I think one set of parameters should be applied across the board.  The mindset about HIV being a 'gay disease' just lulls the majority population into a false sense of security. And this contributes to further demonising people with an already stigmatized disease through all these HIV criminalization cases which apportion a disproportionate share of blame on the poz person in what is essentially a consensual act between 2 people.

Edited for grammar

[Miss Philicia]

He's about as SCARY LOOKING as most of the HIV-queers right here in ABQ, I wouldn't touch any of them with a 20 foot-pole 

Keep it classy

[wolfter]

The world has gone crazy, this guy sleeps with 1000's of people and I have a difficult time finding just a few. 

Wolfie

[tednlou2]

Get him the Oprah lighting and camera filters, and he'd look great.  If you saw my driver's license photo, you'd say I was ugly.  It actually looks like a police booking photo.  Scary!  I've thought about getting a new one, even though it's not time to renew it.   

Anyway, I noticed how the anchor says, "...accused of spreading AIDS."  She does this twice.  We don't spread AIDS.  It is 2012 almost, I would think the media would get that right by now.  But, I see that all the time.  This isn't just semantics.  There is a huge difference, as we all know. 

As for the criminalization--- I don't know the answer.  It seems unthinkable to me that someone who wants to do this should have NO repercussions.  So what should happen?  Nothing, with the person free to continue to try and spread the virus, even ones who just want hot sex and hope transmission doesn't occur?  I realize many of these cases have not led to infections, but that seems like saying I shot my gun into a crowd, but no one was hit.  If no jail time, should they at least be put on a searchable list for people who knowingly put others at risk time and again?  I think if I had a daughter or son who was infected by someone who knew and lied to them, I would want that person to face consequences.  I just couldn't say, "Well, son, I know he/she lied to you, but it was totally your responsibility after all."  So, this is why I'm torn on this issue and I know I contradict myself and make excuses for those who mess up one time.  But, there is something different about someone who serially does this.   

 

[denb45]

For all we know his so called confession could have been coerced by the police, I mean, if they want to railroad someone for HIV/AIDS, it is possible ya know.......just saying 

[mecch]

So called "thousands" of dumb ass women are lining up to have unsafe sex with this dude.  Call me incredulous.

[TonyDewitt]

Ted - I agree with you, there's some point where someone maniacally spreading HIV has to be stopped (short of jail, I don't know how else). Yes, everyone's responsible for their own well being, but I also think there's a "typhoid Mary" category as well. A female friend of mine said that she'd attend orgies where the guys would occasionally remove their condoms while the ladies were out of the line of vision (e.g. bent over). Last month, a pro wrestler in Ohio was jailed for potentially infecting 14 women. It's a hard line to draw for sure.

[spacebarsux]

Ted - I agree with you, there's some point where someone maniacally spreading HIV has to be stopped (short of jail, I don't know how else). Yes, everyone's responsible for their own well being, but I also think there's a "typhoid Mary" category as well. A female friend of mine said that she'd attend orgies where the guys would occasionally remove their condoms while the ladies were out of the line of vision (e.g. bent over). Last month, a pro wrestler in Ohio was jailed for potentially infecting 14 women. It's a hard line to draw for sure.

1.   Woman is in an abusive relationship with a man. Starts having an affair with someone else. Contracts HIV. Terrified of consequences if she discloses to her husband and is no position to dictate to him about wrapping up. She exposes him to HIV. Transmission results.

2.   Man hooks up for a one night stand on an internet site. He usually doesn’t disclose but always wears condoms. Then one night he slips up in a state of intoxication and truly forgets to wrap up or whatever. Exposes someone to the virus and transmission takes place.

3.   Man hooks up for sex often. He never discloses but always (without exception) wears a condom. Then, one night, during a particularly rough sex session, the condom breaks but he realises it after the act is concluded. He is terrified to disclose, so he doesn’t. Transmission occurs.

4.   A and B are two people in a relationship. B gets diagnosed with HIV. B does not tell A as he does not want to lose him and wants to take time to come to terms with everything. They always practice safe sex and continue to do so.

A year down the line, B finds out A is cheating on him. B is infuriated and wants A to pay. B suggests that they dispense with condoms with the clear intention of causing harm. B knowingly, with a conscious mind, has unprotected sex with A on several occasions with the sole purpose of infecting him (as opposed to it being a one time thing). When B is the active partner in intercourse, he makes sure he ejaculates in A- many times. Transmission results.

I think it is justifiable for the criminal justice system to get involved in scenario 4. However, the ‘burden of proof’ rests with the prosecution to prove that the ‘intention of causing harm’ was unequivocally present – to a degree that is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ (as in all criminal cases).

I think the courts have no business at all in entertaining cases that resemble scenarios 1, 2 or 3. There is clear ‘intent to harm’ in scenario 4 that is lacking in the other cases- which is ‘essential’ and ‘key’ before sentencing anyone. I also think a media-gag should be ordered by the courts out of respect for the litigants involved, not to mention the awful and lopsided message that goes out to the public.

The guy in scenario 4 is no different to someone assaulting and causing bodily harm and thus he should be charged under the ‘general criminal provisions’ and not some special HIV law.

I imagine such a case deserves the title of ‘rarest of the rare’- and quite frankly I find it ludicrous to think the offender should walk scot free - or that any court would let him/her (i.e. scenario 4).

The real problem then is with how much finesse and accuracy the legislators and the courts make this distinction- especially since there is the very real possibility of miscarriages of justice resulting if the courts start including negligent/ reckless behaviour (such as in scenario 1, 2, 3) as ‘reckless enough to warrant the malicious label’. I find that totally wrong and something to be avoided at all costs.

[mecch]

HAART and undetectable status should be talked about in the news when reporting on these cases.
Anderson Cooper did his duty explaining to viewers that the kid not admitted to the prep school was on HAART and the chances of him passing the virus if in deed the young teenager ever had sex and it was unsafesex, would be extremely low. He said ALL that on air.
Newspapers have a role to report harder truths. geez

[denb45]

Newspapers have a role to report harder truths. geez

yeah the news media will always sensationalize something without the facts just to get the story, no wonder why HIV/AIDS stigma is still rampet in our society, they are doing more harm about this disease than they are actually helping 

[jkinatl2]

I'm pretty sure that, barring a working vaccine or major medical breakthrough, until there's a new Boogeyman, we're it.

[anniebc]

Quote: The second victim in this case is identified only as Jane Doe. She will remain anonymous, as will any other victims who come forward..Unquote.

They are not victims, they are women who didn't insist on safe sex..what the F**k is wrong with these people...but even if a condom was used they are still not Victims, claiming to be a victim is just covering their arse's, they consented to having sex with him, so they are as much to blame as he is.

Jan