You and me, we're playing around, playing soldier with toy guns, or playing paintball. But my paintball gun fires bullets. Naturally, I fail to mention this. You, liking a nice game of paintball, agree to play. I shoot you, you die.
Your fault for agreeing to play? You shoulda wore a vest, you know.
They agreed to get HIV when they didn't know he had it? please tell me how you come up with that logic.
Had he told them he had HIV and they still slept with him then yes i would agree. He didn't tell them which is a criminal offense and in some states brings a murder 1 charge.
no they didn't agree to get HIV.
What's the law that he broke?
It does not appear that Missouri has a law requiring informed consent. If he infected someone who dies from it that is another matter.
CDC - State Laws - HIV and the Law - Policies and Programs - HIV/AIDS
HIV is not the only sexually transmitted disease that will kill you. Hepatitis will as well. There is a vaccine for Hep B, but not Hep C. The treatment for Hep C is interferon, an expensive treatment for which not everyone is a candidate.
I've noted the vehement responses about what should happen to this man. And I'm quite confused after spending time on the thread about college rape. It seems that on that thread a woman who gets raped in college is perceived to be at fault because she allowed herself to get in that situation. But in this situation, you want the man castrated.
Unless you are in a 100% monogamous relationship, anyone a person has sex with could transmit HIV to the person. This is not the early days of HIV, education has been out there for years. Everyone knows this. The people were not forced into this. Granted they didn't know about the videotaping. Nor the HIV, but it does not appear the man was under any legal obligation to disclose. But they agreed to the sex anyway. And they went into it without insisting on protection. So why the vehemence in this thread, but in the other thread women who are raped on a college campus are to blame because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Please clarify. This is indeed confusing.
Thank you. That's what I was looking for, not "OMG WHAT HE DID WAS HORRIBLE-ZORS!". If he's under no legal obligation to disclose then there's been no crime there. Videotaping the encounters might be illegal but it's unlikely.
I said they agreed to have the metaphoric gun pointed at them. When playing Russian roulette, you agree to that.
Again only if he had told them he had HIV and they slept with him anyway. what you still don't get is that he didn't tell them that information. Not only did he not tell them
he didn't tell them on purpose.
it is no different than that doctor that went around infecting people with HIV while they were knocked out.
stop defending the criminal. i know it is hard for liberals to do that but there is no defense to what this guys did. he ruined 36 lives on purpose.
you are required by law to disclose if you have HIV to any partner you sleep with if you know about it. If you do not then you can be put on trial for murder 1
since you gave those people a death sentence and they had no way to object.
What you don't get is that I do get that he knew and didn't tell them; and that while I think that is criminal I still think that the people who didn't protect themselves are irresponsible to themselves.
When you are having sex with strangers or near strangers, you are playing Russian roulette if it is not safe sex. Period. You are much more likely to have sex with someone who doesn't know they have HIV at all than someone who knows and doesn't disclose it. The fact is that people must protect themselves against those who don't know their status. That alone blows apart your feigning that these people are ignorant victims. The fact that on very rare occasions, a person might purposely attempt to give you HIV doesn't suddenly change this responsibility.
It is illegal to infect another person with HIV knowingly, irrelevant of telling them. Class A felony, and Class B felonies for any person who he had sex with but was not infected.
Section 191-677 Prohibited acts, criminal penalties.
Again only if he had told them he had HIV and they slept with him anyway. what you still don't get is that he didn't tell them that information. Not only did he not tell them
he didn't tell them on purpose.
it is no different than that doctor that went around infecting people with HIV while they were knocked out.
stop defending the criminal. i know it is hard for liberals to do that but there is no defense to what this guys did. he ruined 36 lives on purpose.
you are required by law to disclose if you have HIV to any partner you sleep with if you know about it. If you do not then you can be put on trial for murder 1
since you gave those people a death sentence and they had no way to object.
Please see the previous page he committed a class A felony according to the state laws. these laws have been in effect since the 90's.
according to MO website a class A felony carries a 10-life sentence if deemed appropriate.
that is your opinion the fact is he had HIV. The fact is he knew that he had HIV. The fact is that he failed to disclose that information on purpose to the people that he was sleeping with. The fact is that is a class A felony and in some states carries a murder 1 charge.
The fact is this guy is going to jail for a long long time.
i am not feigning anything. did they know he had HIV? no they didn't. did he he know that he had HIV? yes. did he fail to tell them? yes.
guilty.
stop defending the criminal since there is no defense to be had.
he ruined 36 peoples lives on purpose. they will no longer be able to get married. they will no longer be able to have a family or kids. they will end up dieing a horrible death in the end. your lack of empathy for the victims in this case is appalling but typical.
Wow. That whole post is full of fail.
Never ever double wrap. And statistically zero? Laughable.
Wait a minute. The victims are just as stupid as a monster trying to kill people? Did you really just equate the victims and the monster?
Who told you this?
Please feel free to prove me wrong, but please do pay attention to the syntax.
Heterosexuals, on the other hand if they avoid sex with bisexual men, and people that use needles, have a statistically zero chance of getting HIV.
Where?
Only if the article does not specify.
Perhaps you need to pay attention to syntax. This is idiocy:
Hopefully he goes to prison for a very long time.
Complete douchebag. Hopefully no one he had sex with was infected.
that is your opinion the fact is he had HIV. The fact is he knew that he had HIV. The fact is that he failed to disclose that information on purpose to the people that he was sleeping with. The fact is that is a class A felony and in some states carries a murder 1 charge.
The fact is this guy is going to jail for a long long time.
i am not feigning anything. did they know he had HIV? no they didn't. did he he know that he had HIV? yes. did he fail to tell them? yes.
guilty.
stop defending the criminal since there is no defense to be had.
he ruined 36 peoples lives on purpose. they will no longer be able to get married. they will no longer be able to have a family or kids. they will end up dieing a horrible death in the end. your lack of empathy for the victims in this case is appalling but typical.
I already pointed out the two most glaring instances, despite your qualifiers (which no one could know any more than if the other person has HIV).Oh, then please do point out where I'm wrong. Please make sure you pay attention to the syntax in my words. They are important.
Tim-
that is your opinion the fact is he had HIV. The fact is he knew that he had HIV. The fact is that he failed to disclose that information on purpose to the people that he was sleeping with. The fact is that is a class A felony and in some states carries a murder 1 charge.
The fact is this guy is going to jail for a long long time.
i am not feigning anything. did they know he had HIV? no they didn't. did he he know that he had HIV? yes. did he fail to tell them? yes.
guilty.
stop defending the criminal since there is no defense to be had.
he ruined 36 peoples lives on purpose. they will no longer be able to get married. they will no longer be able to have a family or kids. they will end up dieing a horrible death in the end. your lack of empathy for the victims in this case is appalling but typical.
Your last paragraph is completely false. Even if all 36 were infected, which they very likely aren't, they can lead happy and productive lives. They can still get married, they can still have children naturally or through adoption and they may die far before the onset of AIDS and an OI that would kill them.
This is the 21st century, please join us in it.
who is going to take the risk of marrying someone infected with HIV? not to many people i know.
sure they can have children and run the risk of passing the HIV virus onto their kids.
LOL unless they have some kind of accident that causes them to die first the HIV virus will get them.
i do live in the 21st century we have laws that say it is illegal to knowingly sleep with someone and not tell them you have aids or HIV.
Why does it matter to you one way or the other?
You really have no clue what you're talking about do you?
I won't fault you for your ignorance, but I will educate you.
There are hundreds of thousands of serodiscordant couples in this country alone. HIV is no more a barrier to marriage than any other long term illness, like say cancer.
Furthermore, they can have kids with zero risk of transmitting the disease to them. Look up sperm washing to start.
Finally, with life expectancy in the decades, they are just as likely, if not more so, to die from a myriad of other natural causes that afflict all of mankind.
Please do us all a favor and educate yourself on this. We don't need your kind of ignorance to spread regarding this issue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?