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.

bethlynn00
wrote on October 20 2009 @ 08:22 pm: [report]

20/20 also did this story a couple of weeks ago.  I have conflicting feelings about this story.  It is no one’s responsibility to protect YOUR health, these women also had responsiblilty in talking to this man about his sexual history and taking steps to protect themselves. None of the women were forced to have unprotected sex, it was a consensual and they made the decision to sleep with this man.  Most states still don’t have laws to prosecute this, because it is hard to find blame and difficult to find a source, plus it’s one person’s word against another’s as to who the source of infection was; even in this case only a majority of the infection could be linked to the offender with DNA testing, not all. 

At the same time, this man knew his status and therefore had an obligation to take steps to protect himself and his partners from contracting HIV and other STDs and since he knowingly spread HIV and lied about his status he is legal liable to anyone who was infected or affected by his actions. 

I wouldn’t label him as serial killer, because HIV is a virus and AIDS is a disease, scientifically speaking you can only give someone HIV, you can’t give someone AIDS, so HIV is not considered a terminal illness, but AIDS is, so since you can’t spread AIDS, medically and legally he did not give them a disease that would kill them, just a virus that could turn into a disease that maybe become terminal, which is why he was charged with assault and not attempted murder, although in the past that charge has been used, I’m not sure how successful it’s been though. Anyways, I wouldn’t go as far as calling him a serial killer, but definitely a sexual predator would be a more fitting term.

These cases are always intersting and a major concern for people living with HIV/AIDS, I know that I have seen people write up binding contracts even after they let their partners know they are positive, just to protect them in the case that someone tries to take them a court if they were to become positive.

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

bethlynn00
wrote on October 21 2009 @ 03:08 pm: [report]

@ Resullin: it is a slippery slope, because it was brought up at the trial that several women that he slept with did not contract HIV because they requested that he wear a condom and he complied, and even some of the women who did seroconvert stated that he would wear condoms, when they bought up the issue.  Plus most states have laws stating that HIV status is a CONFIDENTIAL matter, so legally you don’t have to disclose your status, unless it is under very specific circumstances, again another reason to protect yourself.  In WI there are only a few situations where someone’s HIV status can be exposed, and most of them revolve around the health care setting and dealing with law enforcement, otherwise the only time that it has to be disclosed is in the case of rape or sexual assault, then it has to be reported to the court.  There are confidential laws in pretty much every state, but they vary, so I’m not sure what they are in TX.  So he could lie, but he would have faced another charge if he forged medical records, and none of these women asked for verifiable proof of his test results (of course most people don;t think to do that) but most organizations that do HIV testing will give you a paper conformation of your HIV status.

bethlynn00
wrote on October 21 2009 @ 03:17 pm: [report]

And someone mentioned Darnell McGee, but they got the numbers wrong.  He was believed to have slept wit hover 100 women, of which about 60 were actually exposed to HIV, and about 13 of which actually tested positive for HIV, but he did not infect 100 women, that’s just how many it was estimated that he’d slept with his whole life.

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….

bethlynn00
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 02:15 pm: [report]

@ Resullins: But it is not illegal for people who are HIV+ to have sex.  So that means that if someone if HIV+ and they tell their sexual partner that they are positive and the partner is not insist on using condoms, they are not responsible if that person becomes HIV+. Many states put those statues in place in the 80’s and today they are rarely enforced, plus HIPAA regulations regarding health care privacy usurp those statues, so you don’t have to disclose your status and someone could not get access to your medical records to discover your status.  You can’t compare this to any other crime, it’s not like any other crime, so the drunk driving, the shooting wit ha gun is all b.s.  Like I said there is a different between HIV and AIDS, you cannot give someone AIDS and people do not die from HIV. Therefore in transmission from one person to another is not murder, because people don’t die from HIV, they die from AIDS, which is not passable from one person to another. And now with the medications, there is a good chance that people can live with HIV and it never turns into AIDS, many people with HIV now die from other causes, that may not have anything to do with them having HIV. So again this is not a murder case and was never tried as one and really couldn’t be tried as one.
Ultimately, we are responsible for our own actions, when these women chose to have sex with this man, without using a condom, without questioning some of the signs that they noticed AFTER the fact, they now have to deal with those consequences, just like he know does for knowing his status and not disclosing.  Just like you said you can take all the precautions in the world, but still become a “victim”.  But honestly HIV is one of the most preventable diseases, it is only transferable under the most specific circumstances, that we don’t like to consider anyone victims, outside of children born to HIV+ mothers, otherwise there is plenty that can be done to prevent it’s transmission and if you watch this story and listen to these women, they took almost no steps to protect themselves.  So in your analogy their doors where unlocked, the alarm was off and they let this man in willing, no questions asked. You say that no one uses condoms forever and your right, I know lots of long term couples who don’t use them, but the women in this case had not been in long term relationships before they stopped using condoms, many of them never used them and had sex within knowing him for just a few weeks, so that’s totally different. One of the woman said she didn’t even think about any type of protection, because she couldn’t have babies.  So you cannot compare this to always being prepared, because none of these women were, and I am not saying they deserved for this to happen, no one does, not even this man deserves HIV. AIDS is a horrible way to die and I see it’s toll on people everyday, not just the infected, but the affected as well, but we cannot foster the idea that personal responsibility is null and void and we also can’t continue to strike fear in those living with this disease that their very existence making them a walking menace.

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.

bethlynn00
wrote on October 22 2009 @ 02:29 pm: [report]

@ Resullin: Thanks for the link for people to see the statues in each state, but most of those have only been used to prosecute cases regarding transmission to law enforcement officers in the line of duty and their has been many challenges in doing so.  But I don’t get what a federal law would do? Honestly as more research is done, I think most of these statues will be taken off the books.  It is very rare that people with HIV maliciously and purposely spread the virus, most transmission happens because people are not aware of their status, but cases like this get so overblown, it makes it seem like when people become infected they want to give it to everyone and that’s just not true.  I work with lots of positive people and I have never meant one who wanted to or tried to spread HIV, as a matter of fact when most people find out their status, they take great pains to protect others and themselves.

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.