These 5 Women Were Given HIV By The Same Man

GreenAura
wrote on October 20 2009 @ 04:40 pm: [report]

Intentionally giving someone HIV is analogous to murder IMO, so 5 victims makes him a serial killer.  The time doesn’t fit the crime, he should have gotten life.

amber
wrote on October 20 2009 @ 06:07 pm: [report]

I do love that he’s going to prison. That ass deserved worse than what he’s getting, in my opinion. He took someone’s ( actually 5 someone’s, maybe more) life in his hands and changed it not for the better and he did it knowingly. It was premeditated, he chose to behave like that and he should get the book thrown at him.

DancingGeek
wrote on October 20 2009 @ 06:15 pm: [report]

Holy Crap! And people wonder why I’m afraid to date.

MariaMaria
wrote on October 20 2009 @ 08:04 pm: [report]

Reminds me of Darnell McGee, he gave over 100 women HIV on purpose in the 90s.

@GreenAura I agree it should be considered murder, he should have totally gotten life.

Oreo
wrote on October 20 2009 @ 08:43 pm: [report]

I’m inclined to agree with bethlynn00 on this.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that this monster is behind bars, but legally, this is a pretty slippery slope.

Say, for example, an employee will be terminated if they miss work, but they contract the swine flu.  Because they have a mortgage to pay, a family to support and so forth, this person goes to work where they spread the H1N1 virus to a co-worker who then passes away.  Using this case as a precedent, one could argue that that the employee who was forced to work when they were ill could be brought up on criminal charges.

Something about this just seems… un-American.

bogart4017
wrote on October 21 2009 @ 10:00 am: [report]

He shoulda got a life sentence. Thats what he gave those women.

resullins
wrote on October 21 2009 @ 12:27 pm: [report]

I have to disagree with the slippery slope argument… He knowingly and willingly gave these women a disease that’s got a better-than-not chance of killing her. Yes, it is her responsibility to protect her, but he can lie (and probably did), he can get fake papers, he can do a whole lot of stuff to make her believe he was safe if he really wanted to give her HIV. There’s only so much you can do when someone is actively trying to hurt/kill you. That mindset to me is the same as blaming the victim of a rape… I carry a knife, I don’t walk down scary streets at night, I protect myself to the best of my ability.

As for the Swine Flu analogy… there’s not very many employers that would fire you for actually having the swine flu. In fact, I’m pretty sure it’s mandated by law that you have to send anyone with a pandimec-rated disease home if they’re contagious. So that’s not a fair analogy. There’s not a lot of viruses that are communicable by air that will also kill you. If I breathe the same air as you before I know I’m sick… oops, I’m sorry, I’ll bring you soup tomorrow. This guy actively SLEPT with these women repeatedly knowing full well that he had a deadly disease.

The question here is really, is it murder. Unfortunately, this guy had intent. Killing without intent is not murder, with it… it is.

AshleyMarie
wrote on October 21 2009 @ 02:43 pm: [report]

Along with @bethlynnoo, I saw the 20/20 on this situation. It’s pretty intense.
They still have all the articles/videos up on their Web site from the episode, if anyone wants to check it out:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/hiv-criminal-busted-women-lied/story?id=8579258

MuchoMacho
wrote on October 21 2009 @ 03:20 pm: [report]

so if he ever gets out and you see him hitting on a woman in a bar, would it be justifiable homicide, since you were trying to protect her life?

resullins
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 08:59 am: [report]

@bethy: Actually,32 states have laws on the books punishing HIV transmission, Texas has none. Ranging from low misdemeanors to Class A Felonies. And HIV status is NOT confidential to potential partners. In fact, the state is required by law to inform all potential sexual partners of an HIV positive person of their status. There are even other cases that warrant the mandated release of HIV status.

It is already considered a crime in 65% of states to pass on a disease that may kill you. And trust, I’ve watched someone waste away and die from AIDS… it’s murder in the worst sense of the word.

Oreo
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 10:58 am: [report]

The history of the United States is the history of laws that have been challenged and deemed unenforceable and unconstitutional.  Without hard evidence (non-circumstantial) that there was a deliberate intent to infect someone with a disease, I don’t see how charges such as these would stand up in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the law is as vague as to criminalize “knowingly passing on a disease that may kill you”, an American could go to jail for having the flu and buying NyQuil from an elderly Wal~Mart cashier who might not have a strong enough capacity to fight it off.

I’m certainly not in favor of passing deadly diseases around, but I’m less in favor of a Big Brother state that could bring murder charges against someone who does not actually commit murder.  Just as I’d expect that it’s the Wal~Mart cashier’s responsibility to get a flu shot, visit his doctor for checkups and take precautions to remain healthy, I’d expect a person engaging in consensual sex to protect themselves by engaging in safe sex and limiting their partners to people that they know and trust.  I don’t think this is a morally or legally unreasonable expectation.

What happened to these women is unfortunate, but they’re aware of the risk and they took it, and it turned out badly.  In that way, I’d say they’re more akin to a drunk driver than a murder victim.  I feel bad for them, but there has to come a point where we accept the responsibility of our own actions.

resullins
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 12:03 pm: [report]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The difference between murder and an unfortunate accident is INTENT. To prove murder you have to have both actions and intent. Any first year law student can tell you that.

He set out to deliberately cause them bodily harm, just like a burglar sets out to take your things. He had both cause AND intent, making it murder.

And really, drunk drivers that kill someone get charged with vehicular homicide more often than anything else. It’s still homicide, so that comparison it moot.

And again, it is important that we take responsibility, but there comes a point in time where someone is going to try and circumvent ALL our protections. The most careful and responsible women in the world still get raped, is that their fault? Saying that they took a risk is assuming a LOT. He lied to these women, it say so right in that clip. He could have forged documents… how are these women supposed to get around that?

You can use the condom thing… they should have used one, it’s their fault if they didn’t, blah blah blah… and I would normally agree. But there’s no woman in the world that’s going to use a condom forever. I’ve been in my relationship for some time, we’re completely monogamous, we use the pill, and we’ve both been tested… but by your standards, we should still be using a condom.

Some of the most careful people in this world are still the victims of crimes, no matter how hard they try to prevent it. You can’t blame the victim… this is murder, cause and intent are easily present.

Oreo
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 01:07 pm: [report]

The drunk driver comparison was to the women who had unprotected casual sex.

The comparison is based on the similarities that both parties are well aware of the risk to their lives (and the lives of others), yet they choose to behave in an irresponsible manner that could threaten both their life and the life of those who come into contact with them as a result of their decision.

Unless it was rape, this comparison applies to both parties equally.

You can argue that “no one in the world will use a condom forever,” and I agree, but that’s your decision.  When you make that decision, you’re well aware of the risks involved.  The ball is completely in your court.  If you make an unwise decision that results in a regrettable outcome, you cannot claim to be a victim.  You had complete control.  You made a poor choice.  End of story.

Rape has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion.  This is about consensual sex.  Obviously, if it were rape, murder charges would be absolutely appropriate.

Unless it can be proven that this man slept with this women for the intent of transmitting the HIV virus to them (which would be VERY difficult to prove; perhaps a diary entry or testimony of a witness who discussed his plan with him).  The only charge that you’d even have a shot at against a reasonably competent defense attorney is involuntary manslaughter, and even that would be difficult to prove because the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.  With current medical technology, it would be very difficult to equate the HIV virus with homicide.  It would seem to be along the same lines of a son or daughter who contracts lung cancer filing charges against their smoking parents for second-hand smoke.  Possible: yes.  Probable: not so much…especially if a single smoker is on the jury.

The long and short of it is that the women made poor choices that resulted in an undesired outcome of which they were educated to know that it was a possibility.  They are not victims.

resullins
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 01:25 pm: [report]

I still have to disagree. Let’s say, I own a gun. I’m very well aware of the affect of guns. I shoot someone… reason doesn’t really matter in this analogy. They die. I could go into court and claim that I did not MEAN to kill them. That’s still homicide.

This man owned a gun (his penis in this case), shot these women (I won’t make THAT comparison for you), and now they are possibly mortally wounded. HE knew very well the consequences of his actions and should be punished. These women have to live with the disease they got, which is a life sentence, no parole, possible death penalty. Why should this man not get the same?

And I STILL cannot see how you’re saying that they should have protected themselves better. They can protect themselves to the HILT, look at his DOH papers, use condoms, everything, and this still could have happened because this man is out there shooting women willy-nilly. If I’m in my home, doors locked, deadbolted, alarm system, etc… and someone breaks in and shoots me, your argument would dictate that unless I was wearing a bullet-proof vest and have the front-door booby-trapped, I was aware of the consequences and should take responsibilty for my own actions.

Anyone can protect themselves from harm about 90% of the time… no one can do it all the time… well, unless they live underground, in a lead box with nodoors, eating only food they grow themselves (which is hard in a lead box), never wearing clothes (people have strangled on ties, ya know), and having air pumped in that is recycled and tested for contamenents.

100% protection from the malicious actions of other people is impossible.

MuchoMacho
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 01:35 pm: [report]

if it isnt illegal its still wrong…  arent laws in place to uphold society’s morals?  lets take a poll of every citizen in america on whether it should be illegal to knowingly pass on HIV.  wouldnt the supreme court have to accept that as current morals, and adjust the law accordingly?  as for this turd, he’ll get his.  someone, somewhere will know what he did and hell pay for it.

FrzKey
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 01:38 pm: [report]

Wow, none of you watched the actual show did you?

The first woman mentioned that she was paying for his medical bills when he had an accident and needed to get treated. While he was being treated he was tested for STD’s including HIV/AIDs. The woman was outside the hospital the day he got those results and he immediately straight up lied to her face that he was AIDs free. She was paying for the test and after she found out that she had contracted HIV went back and requested all the information that she’d paid for previously proving that he knew he had AIDs and deliberately lied to her about his positive test results.

Accidental? I think not.

Oreo
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 01:40 pm: [report]

Interesting gun analogy, but I don’t quite agree with the analogy that choosing to have consensual sex without a condom is comparable to a home invasion. 

In any case, I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree on the legalities of the situation.  I’m sure we agree that we’re glad this man will no longer be able to spread the HIV virus.  I think they got him with several counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which was an interesting way to go about it.

I enjoyed our conversation, and I hope you don’t think poorly of me for my views.  I certainly do not condone what this man did, but when it comes to health, I am a firm believer that personal responsibility trumps all.  Still, I absolutely respect your feelings on the matter.

Oreo
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 01:45 pm: [report]

FrzKey: The debate wasn’t so much that it was “accidental”, but if it could be proven in a court of law that there was a specific intent to infect the women with HIV.

There is no question that the man was aware of his condition and behaved irresponsibly, but reckless endangerment and intent to commit homicide are two VERY different things from a legal standpoint.

resullins
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 01:51 pm: [report]

@FrzKet: Actually, I did… and mentioned that part somewhere in one of my incredibly long-winded posts. I’m not surprised you missed it.

@Oreo: Perhaps it’s not equatable to a home invasion, but I do think it’s equatable to shooting someone. People get charged with murder all the time in accidental shootings. I tend to even think that having HIV and knowingly giving it out is far more dangerous than having a gun. If someone is pointing a gun at my face, I know very immediately that I’m in danger and can take actions to remove myself from it. If a man that I’m in a relationship with and supposedly trust implicitly lies to my face about having AIDS, I have no idea that I’m in danger.

I think the federal law on this needs to be changed. While I can see your point that it’s an odd case, this is nothing short of knowingly and intentionally putting someone’s (multiple someones’ actually) life in danger. This guy was more dangerous than a drunk driver, or a sexual sadist, or a lot of people… he knew exactly what he was doing and he did it anyway. I can’t see it as anything but murder.

That all being said, I, too, enjoyed our conversation and respect your point of view… I just can’t agree with it.

magyar-beauty
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 01:58 pm: [report]

I have to agree with bethlynn00 and oreo on this. while it is disspicable what that man has done and he should be punished for it, i also feel that it was those womens responsibility to use protection; especially the one paying for those tests…she should have insisted on reviewing the medical test results personally instead of trusting his word…when it comes to sex and STDs u can never be too carefull….

resullins
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 02:27 pm: [report]

@beth: I’ll try to keep this short.

1. I know the difference between HIV and AIDS. My uncle died of AIDS, and I don’t believe I have yet used the terms wrong. So shhhsh.

2. Unless you know when the laws were put on the books, don’t try and make that argument. And privacy laws for HIV/AIDS are null and void when it comes to the patient’s healthcare or his sexual partners. Again, federal law dictates that ALL sexual partners be informed when someone tests positive, so he had an obligation to tell them. End of story.

3. People also do not die of a bullet being put into their chests. They die of the resulting complications including blood loss and other trauma… the shooter still gets charged with murder. HIV leads to AIDS in most cases… just like gunshot wounds lead to severe blood loss in most cases. You’re making a crappy argument here.

4. Watch the clip… some of the women DID question him about his status and take precautions… he lied. At what point does it become his fault?

5. I never said that all HIV/AIDS patients are walking menaces, nor did I say that personal responsibility is null and void. However, this man knowingly and purposely endagered human life. At what point does that become HIS responsibility? He needs to man up and accept what he did… plain and simple. He could have easily avoided this by simply NOT lying. It’s that easy.

On a different note, before you post long winded, badly punctuated, factually and grammatically incorrect posts, please read the ones that are already up. Oreo and I have already eloquently discussed all the points you bring up.

resullins
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 02:34 pm: [report]

@BETH: I agree that MOST cases do not happen intentionally. I however do not agree that that particular fact makes this case any less severe or that these laws are going to or should get taken off the books.

There are still a lot of cases where it is given intentionally. Two have been mentioned here. The only thing in question is whether you can prove they KNEW they could possibly kill someone by having sex with them. This guy knew, that’s easily proven. Case closed.