POZ Community Forums
Main Forums => Living With HIV => Topic started by: RobinL1962 on June 13, 2009, 10:35:54 am
-
having coffee this morning, relaxing and reading Seattle gay rag ..."Seattle gay News"...I just read this article and thought I would put it out there on the forum table and see what it provokes... ;)
Peace and Health.....Robin
Man with HIV charged for unprotected sex
by Shaun Knittel - SGN Staff Writer
Zuriel E. Roush, a 22-year-old Gay male, is in Spokane County Jail on $100,000 bond and faces a first-degree assault charge for having unprotected sex with another man without revealing he has the virus that causes AIDS.
Roush appeared last Thursday before Superior Court Judge Ellen Kalama Clark, one day after his arrest and four days after he told police he'd lied about not having the disease when he had sex with a married man in April. According to an affidavit prepared by Detective Jim Madsen, when the man Roush had sex with learned Roush has HIV, he called the police.
The Spokane police served a search warrant to the Spokane Regional Health District to obtain Roush's health records and interviewed his caseworker there. The affidavit said Roush remembers signing paperwork warning him it was a crime to expose people to the virus.
At first, Roush denied having promiscuous sex, police said. But a friend told detectives Roush had multiple sex partners each week, and only sometimes used condoms. The friend learned he had HIV last August, the affidavit said. According to the document, the friend "has been very concerned about Zuriel's actions since August 2008 because he routinely meets anonymous men on a website called manhunt.com, and routinely goes to People's Park for anonymous sex."
Investigators are beginning to suspect that as many as 70 men may have been infected with the HIV virus by Roush, who could only guess at the number of men he put at risk for HIV the past year.
"I can't count, but I think there [were] a few that didn't know," Roush told police.
In interviews with local news stations at the jail, Roush said he felt bad about potentially giving unsuspecting partners HIV, but said people aren't as concerned about catching the virus anymore and don't protect themselves.
Ryan Oelrich, who works for the Spokane AIDS Network, agrees. Oelrich says images of AIDS victims with gaunt faces and sores have faded away, and it's led to a mistaken notion that people can be saved by new drug treatments, which in turn leads to apathy. AIDS is treatable to a point, he said, but only for so long.
Statistics show the number of HIV cases is increasing about five percent a year for Gay and Bisexual men ages 18 to 29 years old. The most recent stats show about 700 people in Spokane County and 1,500 in all of Eastern Washington have HIV. Police want people who have had contact with Roush to seek medical attention. They said the health district offers anonymous HIV testing for people who may be reluctant about coming forward.
Anyone who may be a victim is asked to call Detective Mark Burbridge at (509) 625-4262.
"That's what we have to make sure these people are willing to do: show up to court and testify," said Spokane police Lt. Dave McGovern. "This one victim says he will."
If victims testify, say police, Roush could be looking at a very long time behind bars. In 2006, Kanay Mubita, a Latah County, Idaho, man, was sentenced to 44 years in prison with eligibility of probation after four years for 11 charges related to having unprotected sex with women without telling them he had HIV.
-
with this continuing trend of hiv criminalization, people are not going to get tested for fear of going to jail. more and more people will be infected as a result.
-
The moral of this story is: married men can lie and get away with it.
-
He lied about being positive and then had unprotected sex? I think its wrong. I was infected 7 mos ago and I think my infector lied and knew. I think I am responsible for myself and wouldn't press charges myself. So where do you draw the line? Me charging this guy wouldn't make me neg. So I can't change reality. Maybe its too fresh in my mind but I think its incumbent upon pos people to practice safe sex and that if charged should be held responsible to some degree.
-
thats a pretty crappy piece of journalism.
-
I think its incumbent upon pos people to practice safe sex and that if charged should be held responsible to some degree.
And I think it's incumbent upon hiv negative people to protect themselves and take responsibility when they don't and end up poz. It's a two-way street.
Ann
-
Absolutely I do agree but lying about your status is not cool. Doesn't relieve anyone of their personal responsibility but would I lie and penetrate someone without a condom now - I hope not and if I did I think that there should be some responsibility.
-
Absolutely I do agree but lying about your status is not cool. Doesn't relieve anyone of their personal responsibility but would I lie and penetrate someone without a condom now - I hope not and if I did I think that there should be some responsibility.
I think far more people don't accurately KNOW their hiv status - they only ASSUME they're negative. While I know there are some psychopaths out there who lie and intentionally try to infect others, or intentionally lie and just don't give a shit if they're passing their virus on, I'm quite sure they're in the minority. And anyway, unless a person is raped, they can say NO to unprotected intercourse. It's foolish to assume someone is hiv negative just because they say or think they are. I know, I was once that fool.
Ann
-
I agree with you buÞ this guy supposedly knew before and had u/p sex anyway the way I read it. I think that he has done something undeniably wrong. I don't think it is only his fault buÞ I think he is responsible for keeping it under wraps
-
Aye, don't get me wrong, I think it's totally abhorrent that some people lie about their status and bareback. BUT - I still think the responsibility is 50/50 and unless a person is out there raping others and passing on their virus that way, hiv transmission should not be criminalised.
That's not because I'm afraid of getting thrown in jail myself - I'm very upfront about my status and insist on condoms with anyone but my also-poz bf.
The biggest repercussion/problem with criminalising hiv is it stops people from testing. You can't be prosecuted if you don't know. It also demonises those of us with hiv and makes the general (negative) public think we're all predatory sexual animals out there intentionally infecting others. Criminalisation creates more stigma and goodness knows we have enough of that to begin with.
Ann
-
Ann,
It seems we have a position here that we are 100% in agreement ---- BRAVA! Everyone has a responsibility to protect themselves and that means insisting on safe sex. Criminalising is a negative solution to the problem and allows the non-poz person to pursue an unsafe behavior.
v
-
Do we actually know that criminalisation discourages people from testing .. or is it just something that is said to argue against criminalisation? I can't honestly say that I ever thought that far ahead when deciding whether or not to get tested, so I just can't really get my head around that argument.
I have to confess that whilst I usually argue against criminalisation - more from the point of stigmatisation - there are occasional cases where I am there at the front of the queue, with my knitting, waiting for the bastard to be brought to the scaffold.
Even though I can understand why people don't always do it; non-disclosure, in an unprotected situation, is abhorrent in my moral code.
Maybe we should criminalise those who don't test.
-
Maybe we should criminalise those who don't test.
Oh yeah, you'd be happy to know that Singapore is just about to do that, if they haven't already done so, criminalizing non-disclosure and/or infection by anyone who "should have known" their status. The reason? Because criminalization of just non-disclosure didn't seem to work.
If that's the rational I would think we should also advocate for the criminalization of anyone "who should have known" the risk and still allowed themselves to be infected. If it still doesn't reduce infection rate, why not criminalize all unsafe sex? That will do it.
-
Criminalizing non-disclosure of HIV status will bring a false sense of security to those who want to bareback and think that asking the partner's status is 'safe sex.' That's why those in the medical profession practice universal precautions; they assume the individual is HIV positive (among other nasties) and act accordingly. How many new infections due to sex would we have if negative folks assumed they were going to have sex with an HIV+ individual and thus used a condom?
-
Oh yeah, you'd be happy to know that Singapore is just about to do that, if they haven't already done so, criminalizing non-disclosure and/or infection by anyone who "should have known" their status. The reason? Because criminalization of just non-disclosure didn't seem to work
Sorry, dude, but that isn't even remotely what I suggested. You may well be the sort of 'lawyer' who gets off on misrepresenting what people say, but kindly don't try that one with me.
-
My seroconversion is shrouded in questions and no identifiable "unsafe" sex.
I have struggled with the option of pursuing the likely transmitter because he did lie, he was positive, and if it was him, there was transmission. I guess it depends what the punishment is. If it is a civil offense with a fine, then I say sock it to the liar! But, as I said, my case is unique.
Of course, if I pursue him and its not him, I'll feel like a jerk, and have harrassed someone needlessly.
And to boot, he claims now to be on HAART and undectable.
-
People might like to read Edwin Bernard's blog on this.
US: Young, recently diagnosed gay man in Washington State arrested for HIV exposure:
http://criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com/2009/06/us-young-recently-diagnosed-gay-man-in.html
The guy's father said:
“I just feel that unsafe sex by anybody is real dumb in this place and time in the world, I blame both equally.”
- matt
-
PS - various papers published photos of the guy, but not the married man....hmmm
-
UH - is this a "sex offender" crime. Does he go on a list of with pedophiles, rapists, etc...????
-
How do you stop someone like this, or do you just let him keep on his merry way? All the cases I've seen publicized have been egregious, involving large numbers of exposures. HIV assistance resources are already badly strained. Adding to the rolls won't help matters.
Suppose that instead of not disclosing his HIV, he was stealing from his sex partners. Just picking up little things in their homes that they carelessly leave out, like a wallet or ipod or bottle of pills. Most people would agree that the victims 'had it coming' by not being more careful about inviting strangers in their homes. But I think most also agree that the perp should be held accountable for his actions. And petty theft is a lot less harmful than HIV.
-
People might like to read Edwin Bernard's blog on this.
US: Young, recently diagnosed gay man in Washington State arrested for HIV exposure:
http://criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com/2009/06/us-young-recently-diagnosed-gay-man-in.html
I'm torn. It's certainly not the best case to convince me to toe the party line that all criminal prosecutions are bad; but there are too many unanswered questions to come down one way or the other. I can however fully understand the use of his picture in this case.
As usual, Edwin's commentary leaves a lot to be desired; but as that is his personal bog, it is his privilege.
-
At least he wasn't murdered meeting up on Craigslist this time. He should consider himself lucky.
-
People who engage in casual anonymous sex (1) don't talk about any STIs, whether they's married, on parole, in a weird cult, whatever, they don't talk about shit, they fuck n go (2) are naive n have got it coming, especially MARRIED men.
What the guy did is not at all unusual, perhaps even a rite of passage, and 100 straight guys did it the same night with girls, In cars, car parks etc. There are many things to disclose before sex, not just HIV, it's just HIV is mentioned in law . Think of all the girls who ended up that night with a nasty type of HPV, or a chlamydia infection that got them infertile (perhaps), or pregnant at 17. People need a sense of perspective.
Think about this, keen office people, next time you get on the bus with possible flu. Are you gonna ASK people if you can get on? No, it's a risk of normal life in the commuting context
Yes, if convicted he will go on a sex offender register, just like those (mostly) men who groom and violate underage non-consenting kids (they's adults right, these people in parks cruising to get their rocks off, shaggin other adults, and can take rose-tinted stupid, no talking risks while their wifey's knitting baby socks at home even if it's stupid, cos they's adults...).
Exposure laws are bad laws.
No transmission = no harm in my book. HIV or any other infection.
Meanwhile, in Washington State, while the cops are tied up with this wide-ranging investigation, how many alleged rapists will get their pic and name in the papers? Prob, near enough, diddly squat....
- matt
-
What does this say to the chief officers of enron and worldcom (not to mention bernie madoff sentenced to 150 years when he was investigated 8 times in past 16 years for too good to be true returns). If it is too good to be true, is it ok to lie? Should rape victims be questioned about their behavior? No question that you should not hang out in the south bronx in the dark but does that excuse evil? I cannot blame the one from whom I contracted the virus (thank you ann that will be his name from now on). But I could not tell someone I was negative and then stick my bare dick in them. Could anyone else here? I think it is wrong and wouldn't let myself off the hook. I am not saying that the other person married or not isn't wrong stupid or naïve. But I don't think it is ok.
-
People who engage in casual anonymous sex (1) don't talk about any STIs, whether they's married, on parole, in a weird cult, whatever, they don't talk about shit, they fuck n go (2) are naive n have got it coming, especially MARRIED men.
What the guy did is not at all unusual .................................
See, it is arguments like that which keep making me uneasy about the soundness of the case being pushed by the anti-criminalisation lobby.
Whilst I get where you are coming from, knowledge is power. And whilst I completely agree that there is shared responsibility, I don’t necessarily agree that it is shared equally; because I just can’t get away from that one fundamental belief that if you have the knowledge, then you have a moral duty to use it.
That said, I also think it is far easier to moralise than it is to act; so I do think that it should be a pretty extreme case, involving extreme and habitual recklessness or demonstrably deliberate intent to harm, before you prosecute.
As to the closing bit of your argument, Matt:
- Both he and his parents clearly chose to speak to the press, so I think it would behove us not to make too many assumptions to fill in the blanks
- If any rapist was alleged to have raped more than 30 women, then I am damn sure his picture would be on the front page of every newspaper (and quite rightly so)
In this case, I'm not entirely convinced of that extreme recklessness. There is certainly something habitual going on, but there just isn't enough information there to rid of that uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach that there is a lot more going on here than meets the eye .. and he certainly shouldn't be prosecuted simply to sate the supposed victim's need for revenge.
-
I don't mean that this case is 100% the infector's fault. I ask those questions to see where the line is drawn. All I understand about this case is that this guy knew he is positive, said he wasn't and had unprotected sex. I think its impossible to judge what happened behind closed doors, nor would I be apt to believe it entirely. But I don't think that it should not be held to the light of a court case because the hiv- person was naïve, stupid or reckless. I think there is a case to be heard. I have no idea what happened in reality. But how could one say that it is not a case at all?
-
Whilst I get where you are coming from, knowledge is power. And whilst I completely agree that there is shared responsibility, I don’t necessarily agree that it is shared equally; because I just can’t get away from that one fundamental belief that if you have the knowledge, then you have a moral duty to use it.
But in this situation, both parties possessed relevant knowledge. The married man knew, or certainly should have known, that having unprotected sex could expose him to HIV. He should certainly also have realized that HIV is quite common among men who have sex with other men, and thus by having sex with this young man, his risk of contracting HIV was heightened. Yet, despite that knowledge, the married man chose to have unprotected sex. To use your words, he failed in his "moral duty to use" that knowledge. (That the married man may have been lied to doesn't sway me much. Anyone would be a fool to trust a complete stranger in such a situation.)
Since we're discussing legal concepts here, what the married man did has a legal name, at least in the civil context. Here in the U.S., it's called "assumption of the risk," which is generally defined as voluntary acquiescence in a known danger. This doctrine ordinarily bars a plaintiff from recovering in tort (i.e., for a civil wrong) from someone who harmed him, since the plaintiff, with full awareness of the possible risk, chose not to take heed of it. Were this a civil case, the married guy would be completely out of luck, in my view. He decided to cheat on his wife with a strange man. He further chose to have unprotected sex with the stranger. He made those choices with full awareness of the danger of contracting HIV (or, as Matt points out, some other STD).
This isn't to say that Roush is blameless. Clearly, he isn't, since he knowingly exposed another person to HIV. That's reprehensible. But should he be criminally liable for it? I have very grave doubts. One might well analogize this to a rape case, in which consent is a defense if it can be established. One could certainly argue that the married guy's behavior constituted implied consent.
And criminalizing this kind of thing may have unintended consequences. If a person thinks he's positive but isn't sure and hasn't been tested, he can have unprotected sex with someone without violating the law, even though he may well be spreading HIV. That puts someone who has been tested in a worse position legally than someone who hasn't. I'm just not sure that's wise.
-
Also, many older men (married or not, irrelevant here) have unprotected sex with young (18-25) guys because they think ''they are young, they must be clean''... Yeah right...
-
But in this situation, both parties possessed relevant knowledge. The married man knew, or certainly should have known, that having unprotected sex could expose him to HIV.
But one had more knowledge than the other. The fact that the married man was cheating is an entirely separate matter, and any feelings we have about that betrayal should be dealt with separately.
I suppose what makes me uneasy is the lack of any sensitivity to the psychology of learning that you are HIV-positive and just what that can do to your powers of reason. There is no distinction between those who genuinely just don't give a shit about anyone else and those who are so troubled by their diagnosis that they are in some ways temporarily incapable of fully reasoned thinking.
That indeed makes the process wrong; but a complete abandonment of the process could be just as wrong. Surely there is some way of refining the process to make it more sensitive.
That said, I repeat that I am not convinced about this prosecution.
-
I have been on this forum a year and this topic prompts active debate every 4 months or so.
-
So most folks here think the guy should be allowed to keep doing what he's doing, and tough luck for everyone he infects.
-
So most folks here think the guy should be allowed to keep doing what he's doing, and tough luck for everyone he infects.
Not prosecuting him doesn't equate to doing nothing. Does it not occur to you that the guy may need some help and support?
-
Allowing him to keep doing what he's doing doesn't equate to doing nothing.
Help and support doesn't equate to stopping him.
I think a lot of people fear that prosecuting the extreme cases like end up with all of us in AIDS gulags.
-
I prefer to think that there is a very real possibility that he is doing it because of a lack of the right sort of help and support.
Not forgetting that for all we know, the other 30+ people he had unprotected sex with may all have told him that they were HIV-positive. We really shouldn't make assumptions to fill the gap in our knowledge.
-
That seems likely, but in the meantime he's deliberately spreading a fatal disease.
-
That seems likely, but in the meantime he's deliberately spreading a fatal disease.
I'm glad you have the power to read his mind, because I don't and I don't see any evidence of that intent.
-
Regardless of intent the effect is the same.
I'd be happy to see him stopped simply with a chat with a counsellor, but if that doesn't work then what?
-
I'd be happy to see him stopped simply with a chat with a counsellor, but if that doesn't work then what?
Then you deal with that and perhaps prosecution is then appropriate.
-
The moral of this story is: married men can lie and get away with it.
Must agree, epidemiology reports over the past few years are trending with the happily married woman, monogamous, over 40 and no drug history as the highest risk group in the U.S.
With that out of the way, I would like to share a story of when I was charged for protected sex. It must have been 30 years ago because the friend in the story died of AIDS at least 25 years ago. I was on a business trip and stopped in Placer County where my life long friend lived, he was a hemophiliac. I invited him to go with me for an evening of gambling in a Reno casino... he accepted.
I was a killer that night on the $5 tables. I had connected (almost) psychic with a dreamy gay dealer and we couldn't resist each other. I followed him table to table, took breaks when he did and always knew to double down. You could feel the cameras and the pit boss watching... was he feeding me the good cards, was I counting cards? I lost every third hand and walked out of the casino with a couple thousand of their dollars. My friend was broke like we always were after being in Reno for a few hours.
I took him to Mustang Ranch and had never been there before. For a whore house, Mustang Ranch was a disapointment at least in my eyes.
You get to the door and the madam parades all of her available girls for you. My friend chose his woman while I couldn't find one I wanted. I wanted the card dealer from the casino. "Go ahead BOYS, pick anyone you want!"... I said, "do you have any others?" I did find one at the bar later, I got a sauna, a hot tub and 50/50 for a hundred bucks at Mustang Ranch.
My friend died of AIDS from a transfusion and I never went to Reno again. ;D Have the best day
Michael
-
"Investigators are beginning to suspect that as many as 70 men may have been infected with the HIV virus by Roush, who could only guess at the number of men he put at risk for HIV the past year."
I would like to point out again that we are confounding, in threads like this one, the general question of criminal transmission laws (pretty crappy) WITH criminal exposure laws (total caca?) AND FURTHERMORE with this shitty piece of reporting that doesn't explain exactly how "investigators" have come up with this figure of 70 transmissions.
Although lots of good points have been raised.
We clearly don't have much information about this particular case.
-
Regardless of intent the effect is the same.
I'd be happy to see him stopped simply with a chat with a counsellor, but if that doesn't work then what?
But intent is a key issue in any criminal prosecution. In fact, you can't commit a crime unless you possess the intent to do so. A person who is positive but doesn't know his status may infect someone else, but that person does not thereby commit a crime. He may incur civil liability for negligence, but he hasn't committed a crime. The effect is the same (i.e., someone has been infected with HIV), but the legal consequences are very, very different.
As for what you do if this guy refuses to stop, the state can opt for commitment proceedings. Public health authorities have the power to quarantine people like this.
-
Public health authorities have the power to quarantine people like this.
"People like this."
This guy is being tarred and feathered in this thread and in his state and we haven't the fulll story.
http://www.inlandecho.com/articles/local-news/police-seek-possible-sex-partners-of-zuriel-e-roush.html
I can't see his interview, I'm out of the country. What does he say for himself?
http://www.veoh.com/browse/morelike/v18499433esMMZjg5
Here is a another printed story with some quotes:
http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=10406380
HIV+ man admits having unsafe sex with 20 men
Posted: May 22, 2009 1:27 AM Updated: May 22, 2009 1:50 AM
Also See:
*
HIV+ man admits having unsafe sex with 20 men
Story by:
*
Erik Loney / KXLY4 Reporter
SPOKANE - A local man has been arrested on 1st Degree Assault charges for admittedly having unprotected sex with numerous men without telling them he was HIV Positive.
Zureil Roush could have more than 20 potential victims in the community according to the Spokane Police Department.
In a jail house interview Thursday afternoon Roush says he willingly had unprotected sex with men he met in online, on chat lines and in People's Park without telling them he had HIV.
"I can't count but I think there's a few that didn't know," Roush said.
Zuriel Roush doesn't know the exact number or the names of all the men he's had sex the past year. The 22-year-old contracted the virus from a former boyfriend and has known he's HIV Positive since August but he continued to have unprotected sex and admits he only told about half the men he has the virus.
"I wanted to apologize to everybody I've come into contact with and haven't told," he said.
Roush is apologizing the day after he was arrested for assault. A bi-sexual married man went to police after having sex with Rouch after he later learned that Roush is HIV Positive and didn't tell him.
"I feel really guilty, I feel bad, I should have told him," Roush said.
Roush said he had "no idea" why he was having unprotected sex, but claims that Spokane's gay community isn't as concerned as it used to be about the virus.
"Nowadays if somebody has HIV they don't care, they don't care about asking," he said.
Roush is now sorry he wasn't more careful with the married man that went to police.
"I want to apologize to him and his family for putting him at risk, his wife at risk. Their lives are pretty much ruined from this point on if it comes back positive on them."
************************************
I have yet to see any statement about any 1 transmission, traced to him. Nor has anyone bothered to say what the "unsafe" sex consisted of.
This story is a mess. Too many people involved in this story are talking around the issues.
-
But intent is a key issue in any criminal prosecution. In fact, you can't commit a crime unless you possess the intent to do so.
Not really true -- Involuntary manslaughter comes to mind -- you didn't intend to cause a death, but you did (hell, you may not have even intended to hurt anyone, but your actions still resulted in harm).
Now, this doesn't apply to the case in question here, but I wanted to point out that "intent" is not really required for a crime.
Mike
-
Not really true -- Involuntary manslaughter comes to mind -- you didn't intend to cause a death, but you did (hell, you may not have even intended to hurt anyone, but your actions still resulted in harm).
Now, this doesn't apply to the case in question here, but I wanted to point out that "intent" is not really required for a crime.
Mike
Can you say "criminal negligence" boys and girls? I think you can!
-
Has the married guy been arrested, or at least been forced to have a mental evaluation? Isn't that what happens after someone is talked off a ledge, or is talked off an overpass after halting traffic and making the news?
So most folks here think the guy should be allowed to keep doing what he's doing, and tough luck for everyone he infects.
Maybe that's how you view it, but then again, if you choose to generalize based on a few select comments, most people are probably out to get you.
-
Not really true -- Involuntary manslaughter comes to mind -- you didn't intend to cause a death, but you did (hell, you may not have even intended to hurt anyone, but your actions still resulted in harm).
Now, this doesn't apply to the case in question here, but I wanted to point out that "intent" is not really required for a crime.
Mike
Without wishing to become involved in an overly technical legal discussion, intent is most certainly an element of the crime of involuntary manslaughter. The difference is that involunatary manslaughter often involves the legal concept of "transferred intent." In such a case, a person is killed as a result of the commission of an unlawful act when the defendant did not intend to kill the victim but realized that his unlawful act might result in death. The intent to commit the unlawful act is "transferred" to the killing. Here in California, a defendant may also be convicted of involuntary manslaughter if he acts with "conscious disregard for human life." Once again, however, the defendant is only liable for the crime if he is conscious of the harm that his actions may cause, even if he has no specific intent to cause injury to any particular person. So if you throw a brick out of a fourth floor window onto a busy sidewalk below, you may not intend to kill anyone, but you are acting in such disregard for human life that your intent is deemed sufficient for criminal liability.
-
"People like this."
This guy is being tarred and feathered in this thread and in his state and we haven't the fulll story.
Let me be clear. When I said "people like this," I was referring to what had been alluded to earlier in the thread. That is, someone who is repeatedly having unprotected sex with others without disclosure of his positive status. I honestly don't know whether that describes this particular case, and it's hard to tell from listening to this kid's interview.
One thing that struck me was his statement that he "thought" he was having protected sex with the married man. For some reason, the reporter didn't follow up on that. She seemed much more interested in getting him to commit to some specific number of "victims." And there was no attempt to get him to specify exactly what "unprotected sex" meant. So I don't think anyone can judge how serious this particular case is.
-
Thank you, my point exactly.
-
he was having protected sex with the married man.
Yes, this is important, maybe it was just BJs all round, or some hand jobs. In which case the judge, jury, police and public health officials should go get a few. The journos deserve to be denied the opportunity.
- matt
-
Zureil Roush could have more than 20 potential victims in the community according to the Spokane Police Department...
Consider most of us have had unprotected sex being negative (well, that's how we got it right?), I wonder how many of us would still think of ourselves as victims?
What more, a victim of crime.
-
I blame the condom companies for not making a product that is more enjoyable to use.
-
Sweeeeet second page woulda never figured!!!!
-
Can the wife press charges to her husband for possibly putting her life at risk by getting shafted bareback by some piece of fluff?
-
Who knows she probably could, but she has to squeeze her way past the man on his knees at the front door begging her not to go public with it. I know she has a strong case for palimony and alimony...... if they got any chitlens together!
-
He sounds quite a catch, good moral fibre and all.
-
I blame the condom companies for not making a product that is more enjoyable to use.
We have all seen the bumper sticker that has the words "use it" on a condom... I saw a truck today in San Francisco with the same condom bumper sticker only it said "no thanks" ;D Have the best day
Michael
-
Yes, this is important, maybe it was just BJs all round, or some hand jobs. In which case the judge, jury, police and public health officials should go get a few. The journos deserve to be denied the opportunity.
- matt
That's what I was trying to figure out, but the sound quality on the interview video was so poor, I think I may have missed a good bit of what the guy said. But at one point, he definitely says, "I thought I was having protected sex . . . " and he's talking about the sex he had with the married guy. So I'm wondering if maybe the married dude did something like fuck him from behind without a condom or something like that. I'd like to know what the married guy told the police.
BTW, I like your new pic, Matt. Very dashing. ;D
-
There are two sides to a story but we need to always be conscious when having sex as HIV poz personnels.
-
Just a couple of absurd points that come to mind regarding this criminalisation of non-disclosure:
1. Even if they have had PROTECTED sex - the HIV+ guy would still be comitting a crime. The law requires the DISCLOSURE of one's status to the other, whether the sex is protected or not;
2. Even if the married guy was poz himself - the HIV+ guy would still be commiting a crime. The law requires the DISCLOSURE of one's status to the other, whether his partner is poz or not.
My stand: the law needs to distinguish, between a poz guy who deliberatly goes on an infection spree (with the specific intent to infect) as opposed to random encounter between two consenting adults who might even never met before and def. cannot rely on each other's "word" as the sole need for taking basic universal precautions...