Has anyone seen this???

[Mrmojorisin]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/justice/missouri-hiv-arrest/index.html?sr=sharebar_facebook

[anniebc]

I would like to read the whole story.

Aroha
Jan

[tednlou2]

The video interview is interesting.  The host says she is shocked by the sentence guidelines.  The legal expert says he thought she was shocked that it was too severe, but she thought it was not severe enough.  He takes the point of view many here have-- we don't prosecute people who know they have syphilliis, which can be deadly.  HIV has been singled out. 

I wonder why this man would confess to that number?  I mean, he said there was no way to contact them.  I guess if he was interrogated for hours, then he may have come up with that number.  I also wonder about his definition of sex.  From my experience with park sex, most were just sucking each other off.  There was a fair share of anal sex, but it was mostly oral.  I would like to know whether most of these were oral sex, although I know that doesn't matter with these laws. 

[mecch]

It doesn't matter, oral or anal, for these laws.

As far as the tally goes,

1) when I think about how many times I had sex, I include oral sex.

2) why do you have a problem with him copping to 300 men?? Seems modest to me its 10 years...

The Legal counsel on CNN does a good public education job,but of course its too short a report so he doesn't have time to talk about the defenses the accused can use in court. 

The anchor? Sigh. Seems typical, mouthing the usual fears of the public. Comes off basically like a dipshit, sorry to say.

[Mrmojorisin]

The sad part is the comments on the bottom of the page. Such ignorance, and blatant stupidity.

[tednlou2]

2) why do you have a problem with him copping to 300 men?? Seems modest to me its 10 years...

No, I wondered why you would tell police something that would only hurt your case.  He said there was no way of contacting them, so it wasn't so they could be notified.  Unless he just wanted to be completely honest, that is. 

 

[oksikoko]

No, I wondered why you would tell police something that would only hurt your case.  He said there was no way of contacting them, so it wasn't so they could be notified.  Unless he just wanted to be completely honest, that is. 

I call shenanigans. Pics or it didn't happen. Or any other pop culture meme indicating I think he's exaggerating. It's not that I don't think you could have 300 partners in 10 years (cough), but there's something here that just don't add up... [gets thinking glasses]

[mecch]

The sad part is the comments on the bottom of the page. Such ignorance, and blatant stupidity.

Typical comments. But I thought I read one or two good ones, forums.poz level, about individual responsibility and knowledge.

[mecch]

This things are such Typhoid Mary witch hunts, its difficult to understand what can hurt a case.

[CallMeSid]

I'm guessing that the 300 number comes from the estimated total number of men he's had any sort of sexual contact with in the past 10 years.  The cops and media turned that into 300 (maybe) infected by him.  I read elsewhere that he is receiving treatment, so to the extent that his viral load is low/undetectable, he may have infected nobody.  True, his ex-partner has tested positive and this guy didn't disclose to him, but it's unclear that he was infected by this guy.  Of course, these facts are not relevant to the hysterical masses.

The part of the video clip that I find most annoying/disturbing -- and has made me completely and permanently lose ALL respect for Erin Burnett -- is when, near the end, she says "And he says that he feared rejection.  And I say, 'You're darn right, fear of rejection'..." with such an ignorant, dismissive tone as if to say if you have HIV you SHOULD be rejected.

[mecch]

Her reaction on that point is logical.
We all know we don't like to be rejected and it happens all the time.
In a certain sense, her outrage is fine, because an HIV- person has the right to reject. 
But globally, I do agree with you that the feeling one gets from her is one of repulsion, fear, and anger.  And ignorance. "knowingly willing them to die..."
It bothered me all the more cause she's pregnant, no? And who likes to hear fear and ignorance out of the mouth of a woman carrying new life.

[mecch]

The fact of the matter is there a good number of gay guys who don't disclose in anonymous cruisy locales.  Everyone there presumably knows risks and are doing self calculations what they will and will not do.

I would expect hetero straight-laced mainstream people to react more or less like this journalist.

Frankly if I were to discuss the history of my sex life and got this reaction, I wouldn't give two shits. It would be tiresome and boring to be limited to a 2 minute conversation about undectable viral loads and personal responsibility and what acts are safe or unsafe sex, and which dirty deeds were actually done, and so on and so and so on. 

The hetero is probably already so skeeved out and scandalised about gay "lifestyle" and add in HIV status and it just blows their blown-out hairdo brains....  They wont EVER get to understanding of it, if gay anal sex creeps them out no matter what.

I think the message is for HIV+ people in places with criminal transmission laws, to protect themselves from legal action and therefore act accordingly.  And to fight these laws.

Did he not disclose to his bf, and did that result in a transmission?  In a place where this is a crime?  If so, really really bad choice on his part.  Not to mention, the moral one, HE SHOULD DISCLOSE to his lover. 

But this lack of disclosure AND the transmission from one lover to another is far, in this case, from proven....

[mecch]

Paging Uncle Poopie Honey Boo Boo for his take.  The low down finger pointer! Liar?

[mecch]

People having sex with strangers should protect themselves and should know that there are many STDs out there.  They shouldn't think "everyone must be STD free" and "everyone must be HIV- if they dont say anything".  "Cause there's a law."

I mean, how dumb.

I think the burden of proof would be high to get a conviction on an anonymous contact coming forward, and proving that there was a sex act and nondisclosure. I guess if there is a text message that says yes, "please come to my house and we are going to have sex".
Someone should check, by the way, if we want to interpret this story second and third hand by news reports, if the criminal transmission law there includes any sex act, and non-transmission....

The contentious issue is what happened in that couple...

I was lied to by lover for a few years in the 80's.  We always had safe sex. He never tried anything but safe sex.  When he told me the truth the trust and relationship was destroyed.  I suppose if all that happened in a place where "exposure" means any sex act, with no transmission, is a crime based only on "nondisclosure", I could have prosecuted. But what the fuck? How dumb is this. 

On the other hand, I'm ambivalent about people who purposefully lie to a lover/boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse -- or even a gullible anonymous contact - and manage to transmit HIV.  Thats pretty low down....  The anonymous contact, should have behaved differently.  Between lovers/spouses, we expect honesty and harm reduction...   Easier said then done.  Im NOT saying "nondisclosure" alone would warrant criminal charges...  Im just saying someone who did that in a place where it IS a crime, is stupid ON TOP of being immoral.

[tednlou2]

All I know is cases like this make it harder to argue criminalization is bad policy.  As suspected, many were discussing this today, as it has been on the news and Facebook. 

Most I discussed this with felt he should be in prison, if this is true.  They did say it was unfair to single out HIV, saying not disclosing any known STI should be illegal.  There were differences in how they should be treated.  HIV, Hep C, and something like syphilis should be handled more harshly, while something like chlamydia less harsh.  One said HIV costs tax payers billions, so society has an interest in punishing those who "have no regard for the health of others, due to satisfying their own pleasure or because they are sociopaths."  And, I was surprised most took a different view of someone with a one time fuck up vs someone doing it over and over.  I thought most would say it doesn't matter.  They did say if infection happened, then that makes it much worse.  And, everyone said both had responsibility, but the poz person has much more, especially if you're dealing with someone 16, 17, and to 21.  I think 21 was their age, where they felt you should know better. 

So, just from my own anecdotal story, I don't see any chance to have these laws relaxed or done away, especially with headlines of 300 unprotected partners.  It seems like they will just be the reality, with possible pressure to include other STI's, so HIV isn't singled out. 

[mecch]

I disagree Tednlou.

Cases like this show that criminalisation laws lull dumb and low information people to stick to their dumb faith that sex comes without risk. And there is a layer of dumb law providing reinforcement to dumb faith.  People not communicating before sex.  People not testing for fear of criminal charges. etc etc. etc.

Also cases like this show that the public should not draw lessons on a few news reports.  We need the final results...  As there is no information about any transmissions among the "300 contacts" nor is there information about him having lied, rather than not disclosing. Two people meet online agree to a hook up nobody discusses HIV+ status and they meet and have safe sex and there is no transmission.  That would be a "non-disclosure crime" in some parts, but the law is DUMB, and people in the public inferring out from this, that there was EXPOSURE AND RISK and sociopathy involved, dumber.   Its basically a moral question.  And unfortunately in some parts, a legal question.  But not a public health question if the sex was safe sex.

And finally, the situation in that couple is he said - he said.  Its not proven that this guy lied about his status and "infected his partner".   

Yes I agree that is possible, however.