Two Florida Men Accused of HIV Non Disclosure to Minor

[spacebarsux]

Two men in Florida have been arrested on several counts of sexual assault of a minor, the Sun Sentinel reports. Darrell Allen Evans, 40, and Huy Kien Trinh, 32, met a 16-year-old male using the gay mobile dating app Grindr. They allegedly had unprotected sex with the minor without revealing their HIV-positive status to him. The police claim that Evans and Trinh confessed to regularly having unprotected sex with other males without disclosing they have the virus. A judge set bail for Evans at $410,000 and for Trinh at $420,000, which neither have posted.

http://www.poz.com/articles/florida_nondisclosure_1_23388.shtml?commentson=yes#pagecomments

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/fl-men-accused-of-hiv-crime-20130117,0,7053658.story

[tednlou2]

Curious whether this changes any minds, especially if the boy tests poz.  The age of consent is 18 in FL, which surprises me.  I thought it would be 13. 

Should additional charges be applied, if the boy tests poz?  Or, regardless?  He was not old enough to consent or know the consequences.  It is unclear what all they did.  Was there anal sex?

Just asking questions.   

[contagion]

Not to forget you need to be 18 years old to be on the app in the first place.

[Miss Philicia]

According to the police reports, these were Trinh's parting words when the boy left his home after their sexcapade: "Don't talk to strangers."

That was after the poppers...

[jkinatl2]

Curious whether this changes any minds, especially if the boy tests poz.  The age of consent is 18 in FL, which surprises me.  I thought it would be 13. 

Should additional charges be applied, if the boy tests poz?  Or, regardless?  He was not old enough to consent or know the consequences.  It is unclear what all they did.  Was there anal sex?

Just asking questions.   

It does not change my mind.

The boy was lying about his age, as one has to be 18 to use the app in question. The men had no reason to believe he was underage unless he told them, but that's something that will come out during the trial I imagine.

It might be difficult to prove the source of infection, if the boy indeed tests positive. I suspect that this encounter was not his first time at the Grindr rodeo. Of course the questions of viral loads, medication, and the type of sex involved are also going to be necessary for the trial, as these factors weigh heavily on the possibility of transmission.

I imagine if the boy tests positive, they can test to see if his strain of the virus matches one of the men.

As for the men admitting to having unprotected sex without disclosure on multiple occasions, I do have an opinion on that, obviously. But I do not think my life should be stigmatized in order to "protect" society from these people. Unless they were committing rape, the sex was consensual between adults.

[Miss Philicia]

Hey Theo: Should the parents be liable for buying their kid a smartphone? Should the owners of Gridr be held liable for having a product that, obviously, someone underage can circumvent their Terms of Service?

[bocker3]

Curious whether this changes any minds, especially if the boy tests poz.  The age of consent is 18 in FL, which surprises me.  I thought it would be 13. 

Should additional charges be applied, if the boy tests poz?  Or, regardless?  He was not old enough to consent or know the consequences.  It is unclear what all they did.  Was there anal sex?

Just asking questions.

Change my mind about what exactly?

Whether they should have disclosed? -- No -- I think they should.

Whether non-disclosure should be criminal -- No -- it should not, regardless of transmission.  Especially since no other disease transmission is criminal.

As for the minor thing -- if they are found guilty of statutory rape, so be it - the kid did misrepresent his age, but that is what a court is for -- to deal with that.  Of course, I knew the deal when I was 16 -- hell I had a 1 year old when I was 16, so age of consent is a nebulous thing in my mind.

If he turns up poz -- and it can be shown to the proper standard (preponderence of the evidence, or some such) that these guys were the source, I haven't a huge issue with a civil case -- but not a criminal one.

M

[buginme2]

Whether they should have disclosed? -- No -- I think they should.

Whether non-disclosure should be criminal -- No -- it should not, regardless of transmission.  Especially since no other disease transmission is criminal.

Agreed

[thunter34]

Erm...did anyone else pick up on the fact that the kid couldn't pick out either one of them from a photo lineup?  He got completely plowed by two men and made out with both in a hot tub and couldn't remember what either looked like and had to find them through a "controlled text messages"?

Hmmm....mighty strong poppers.

[Jeff G]

[quote author=thunter34 link=topic=47047.msg573501#msg573501 date=1359083
He got completely plowed by two men and made out with both in a hot tub and couldn't remember what either looked like .
[/quote]

stop judging me  .

[jkinatl2]

Erm...did anyone else pick up on the fact that the kid couldn't pick out either one of them from a photo lineup?  He got completely plowed by two men and made out with both in a hot tub and couldn't remember what either looked like and had to find them through a "controlled text messages"?

Hmmm....mighty strong poppers.

Ech. This smells strongly of meth.

[Miss Philicia]

Ech. This smells strongly of meth.

Didn't this happen in Fort Methdale?

[Rev. Moon]

Didn't this happen in Fort Methdale?

Pretty much.  Pembroke Crimes Pines is not too far from Faggydale.

And yuss, it reeks of meth.  And a bit fishy for some reason.

[Miss Philicia]

Pretty much.  Pembroke Crimes Pines is not too far from Faggydale.

And yuss, it reeks of meth.  And a bit fishy for some reason.

TownGate Trash!

[Mrmojorisin]

 Two things: First, if HIV is now considered a manageable chronic disease, why are they considering attempted murder charges???

Second, was I the only one who noticed this???
 

  Of course, I knew the deal when I was 16 -- hell I had a 1 year old when I was 16, so age of consent is a nebulous thing in my mind.

[bocker3]

Of course, I knew the deal when I was 16 -- hell I had a 1 year old when I was 16, so age of consent is a nebulous thing in my mind.

To ensure clarity and avoid anyone thinking horrible thoughts -- this refers to the fact that my daughter was born when I was 15.

M

[wolfter]

To ensure clarity and avoid anyone thinking horrible thoughts -- this refers to the fact that my daughter was born when I was 15.

M

I completely understood what you meant.  It's a dangerous debate and one I'm seldom ready to argue about debate.  The only time I sought mental health counseling was after my diagnosis.  We couldn't get past the fact that I wasn't a victim of sexual abuse. 

I had a quite a active sex life starting at an early age.  I knew exactly what I was doing and was usually the one initiating it.  By the time I was 16 and could drive, I had the ability to hook up with people all over the tri state area.

And gender didn't matter, just the ability to be satisfied.

Wolfie

[thunter34]

To ensure clarity and avoid anyone thinking horrible thoughts -- this refers to the fact that my daughter was born when I was 15.

M

Sorry, M...but I can't help but laugh at this confuzzlement.   

[newt]

Witchhunt.

Neither of these things is illegal in the UK,  and indeed many other European countries and Us states aside from Florida.

I realise there are US federal statutes eg having a beer and state variations eg age of consent for which you need to be well old even though you can enlist and shoot people on your nation's behalf, therefore age of consent may be a contestable limit. But if you are on Grunger, or whatever, hey ho. It may be tacky and ill-advised but so is much of life, including shop-bought burgers and yoghurts with too much sugar in.

- matt

[Rockin]

I still find it baffling that authorities in the US never take into consideration that the "victim", regardless of age, consented to the unprotected sex. Did the boy asked the guys for a blood test? If they showed him a fake blood test then yes, I'd consider the boy a victim but that's not the case at all. This ain't rape.

I will never get used to the fact that more and more people are willing to have raw sex these days. You'd only have to do a quick browse on Grindr, Manhunt, etc. to see the amount of people willing to do it. Sometimes I ask "Fuck man, aren't you scared?". But it's pointless, those people think they are Superman.

[jkinatl2]

I still find it baffling that authorities in the US never take into consideration that the "victim", regardless of age, consented to the unprotected sex. Did the boy asked the guys for a blood test? If they showed him a fake blood test then yes, I'd consider the boy a victim but that's not the case at all. This ain't rape.

I will never get used to the fact that more and more people are willing to have raw sex these days. You'd only have to do a quick browse on Grindr, Manhunt, etc. to see the amount of people willing to do it. Sometimes I ask "Fuck man, aren't you scared?". But it's pointless, those people think they are Superman.

Well apparently mentioning the due dude of having HIV is now skin to bring a grandmother who talks about the food rationing in WW2. To a lot of people - even on this site - AIDS is over.

[Miss Philicia]

When one does a google-image search of "Huy Kien Trinh" one sees his mugshot and a picture of Angie Xtravaganza.

[Rev. Moon]

When one does a google-image search of "Huy Kien Trinh" one sees his mugshot and a picture of Angie Xtravaganza.

The horror.  That's my avatar.

[Rockin]

Well apparently mentioning the due dude of having HIV is now skin to bring a grandmother who talks about the food rationing in WW2. To a lot of people - even on this site - AIDS is over.

But I don't think they do it because it's ok to take the pills...I think they actually believe it's not gonna happen to them and they put inside their heads that they hate condoms and can't stand them.

[bocker3]

I still find it baffling that authorities in the US never take into consideration that the "victim", regardless of age, consented to the unprotected sex.

Ah, but the whole "age of consent" law is based on the premise that a person is too young to give consent.  Therefore, in the eyes of the law, he could NOT and did NOT consent to having unprotected sex. 

[Miss Philicia]

Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere. What's up with these 40 year old queers chasing after teenagers? Seriously, stop the insanity!

[tednlou2]

I still find it baffling that authorities in the US never take into consideration that the "victim", regardless of age, consented to the unprotected sex. Did the boy asked the guys for a blood test? If they showed him a fake blood test then yes, I'd consider the boy a victim but that's not the case at all. This ain't rape.

I will never get used to the fact that more and more people are willing to have raw sex these days. You'd only have to do a quick browse on Grindr, Manhunt, etc. to see the amount of people willing to do it. Sometimes I ask "Fuck man, aren't you scared?". But it's pointless, those people think they are Superman.

Well, it seems like the boy probably lied to the men.  In the article, it said the man commented how young the boy looks.  Now, this could have meant he looked younger than 16 to them.  But, the law puts the responsibility on the adult to know for sure.  It do look at it differently, if the boy not only lied to get the Grindr profile, but also continued that lie to the men.  But, I guess that's what you run into, when you're 40 and go after really young guys. 

While teens are physically able to have sex, I don't think they are ready to consider the consequences.  I first had sex at 13, with a woman who was 18.  I looked much older.  I had facial hair by 5th grade.  But, I was not mature enough to consider the consequences.  I am lucky I didn't become a daddy.  I did not even contemplate STDs at that age.  I think she was actually trying to get pregnant.  She wanted to do it over and over.  I swear, we had sex 10 times in a night.  She actually became pregnant right after that, but she said it was her fiancé's.  I've wondered whether the child was actually mine.  Even at 16 and 17, I was not ready to consider the consequences of unprotected sex.  She knew my age.  But, society looks at older women with younger boys differently.  Many see it as a great thing to happen to a young boy.  I saw it as a great thing to brag about.  When straight men or gay men do it, people look at it much differently.

[tednlou2]

Btw, i just read this here on POZ.



January 28, 2013

47% of MSM Using Apps to Hook Up Have Unprotected Sex
Almost half of men who have sex with men (MSM) who use dating apps to meet sexual partners have unprotected sex, according to a study by the Community Healthcare Network in New York City and reported by Xtra. Freddy Molano, MD, and Renato Barucco surveyed 725 men who use apps such as Grindr, Scruff, Manhunt and Growlr. About 47 percent of them said they “always, often or sometimes” have unprotected sex. About 68 percent were afraid of contracting HIV. About 81 percent knew “unprotected anal sex” could allow HIV transmission. Respondents included men from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, South America and Eastern Europe.

http://www.poz.com/articles/grindr_molano_barucco_1_23399.shtml

Modified:

Arizona lawmakers are broadening things out to include other STIs.  They include "Climatic bubo," but leave out hepatitis.  I wonder if one of the sponsoring lawmakers has one of the heps?  I would have thought Hep B and C would have been included.  Not that I am saying they should, but that I thought they would include it.  I guess they figure their young son or daughter may accidentally get infected with Hep C from a tattoo? 

In all seriousness, it is odd how they choose what to include.  Since good Christian folks may inadvertently be infected with hepatitis, they aren't including it?  They are including very rare diseases.  Are these diseases found in Mexico?  Well, at least they can say they aren't targeting HIV only. 

http://cronkitenewsonline.com/2013/01/bill-seeks-felony-charge-for-exposing-others-to-hiv-stds/

[newt]

I bet no 35 year old woman is done for going down on her 17 year old boyf in Florida and given $half a mill bail plus the press attention/website listings. Different State/country, would be a different story.

I might not have been wise at 16, but I knew what I was doing. And damn well wanted it.

As for the blokes shagging without condoms, I am unfazed, esp as the source article headlines the "news" Almost half of gay men bareback: study. Ahem, no. And so what? This isn't different to 1993 except there are phones and therefore efficiency.

The point of HIV prevention, in wider context, is to allow men to have the sex they want with other men as safely as possible. Always use a condom, not real, sounds out of date.

This is not to say condoms are not a choice, and a real good one sometimes (often), but to say they are a must, or you are bad if you don't use them, no (in short and to be polite).

- matt

[Miss Philicia]

Actually as far as 1993 goes, I do not recall half of the guys wishing to bareback. Not even 25% and in Slutty Ole NYC.  Probably five years later though yes.

[newt]

Well maybe we counted that shit earlier in the UK.