US man ordered to stop spreading HIV

[webfact]

HIV-positive man ordered to stop virus by Seattle court

SEATTLE:-- A Seattle judge has ordered an HIV-positive man to stop spreading the disease and to seek treatment after he infected eight people in four years.

The man, known only as "AO" in court documents, is required to show up for counselling and to protect future sexual partners.

Officials maintain they are not trying to criminalise sexual activity but to protect public health.

The man could face fines or jail time if he does not comply.

About 50,000 people in the US are newly infected with HIV every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). About 16% of the 1.1 million people living with the virus do not know they are infected.

AO tested positive for HIV in 2008 and spread the virus to at least eight people between 2010-14, according to court documents viewed by local news media.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29168782


-- BBC 2014-09-12

[Katipo]

Assault with a deadly weapon? This shouldn't be legal.

[h90]

Assault with a deadly weapon? This shouldn't be legal.

he actually killed 8 people. Even you can get pretty old with HIV now, but it will reduce your life....and of course make it much more inconvenience.

That is one of the rare cases I would agree with the death penalty.

Only need to think a person infected your daughter on purpose....what a horrible thought.....

[Tatsujin]

What the <deleted> is wrong with the world today . . . kiddy fiddlers get to adopt children, this guy gets to infect (and ultimately kill) unsuspecting partners with HIV and is given "counselling" . . . when did the rights of the accused/perpetrator trump those of the innocent/victim?

[Cpkt8]

The man should be locked up. He's bent on not wanting to die alone.

[ABCer]

I am shocked!

First I thought that he didn't know he had it.

But if he was diagnosed and informed in 2008 he is guilty of endangering life and health of many people.

Where is the root of Judge's leniency? The man is walking free carrying and using a time bomb against the public.

[smedly]

I am shocked!

First I thought that he didn't know he had it.

But if he was diagnosed and informed in 2008 he is guilty of endangering life and health of many people.

Where is the root of Judge's leniency? The man is walking free carrying and using a time bomb against the public.

actually I view a drunk driver as a lot more careless than this guy - it's all about potential to harm or kill

I also know a lot of people here in LOS that boast about their extremely risky behaviour with casual ladies yet refuse to get tested for HIV or Hep, again equally as bad - high potential to contract and infect and not knowing you have it is no excuse in this case, the potential and understanding that you could have it and are spreading it are high and that is well understood by those involved - denial is no excuse for stupidity and risk

At the same time this guy is extremely irresponsible and could possibly have some mental issues, if he was getting treatment and being properly medicated the risk of passing the infection to someone is now understood to be near enough zero so there is no excuse for acting irresponsibly

[TallPalm]

I am shocked!

First I thought that he didn't know he had it.

But if he was diagnosed and informed in 2008 he is guilty of endangering life and health of many people.

Where is the root of Judge's leniency? The man is walking free carrying and using a time bomb against the public.

actually I view a drunk driver as a lot more careless than this guy - it's all about potential to harm or kill

I also know a lot of people here in LOS that boast about their extremely risky behaviour with casual ladies yet refuse to get tested for HIV or Hep, again equally as bad - high potential to contract and infect and not knowing you have it is no excuse in this case, the potential and understanding that you could have it and are spreading it are high and that is well understood by those involved - denial is no excuse for stupidity and risk

At the same time this guy is extremely irresponsible and could possibly have some mental issues, if he was getting treatment and being properly medicated the risk of passing the infection to someone is now understood to be near enough zero so there is no excuse for acting irresponsibly

Are you serious? Or was this a typo? You actually view a drunk driver as a lot more careless? Or did you mean a lot less careless?

I driver can be drunk without killing people and I'm sure this is most often the case. I don't know the risk ratio of drink drivers versus HIV carriers having unprotected sex but I'd prefer to be in the car with a drunk person than have unprotected sex with an HIV carrier.

[William_R]

There are two sides to this coin, which is probably why he got off so easy. It takes 2 to tango folks! Why did the people he infected agree to unprotected sex? What are the chances those people would get infected anyway? I'm not defending the guy's actions, but if you step back and look at the bigger picture he's only half of the equation.

Perhaps other people are willing to roll the dice, but I assume every sexual contact is positive and act accordingly.

[SOTIRIOS]

....I though that just spitting on someone was considered 'attempted murder'...so why isn't this psycho arrested......

[Seastallion]

In NZ there have been two cases in the past of men knowingly infecting other people. They were both charged, convicted, and imprisoned.

I forget what the charge was....may have been attempted murder.

I am very suprised that America is not tougher than this. The prosecutor was very weak. Reckless endangerment should have been the least he was charged with. But then it is a very litigious country, so perhaps the rationale of the judge is the victims can sue.

[Shurup]

Cut his dick off and feed it to the dogs - end of counseling.

Having unprotected sex is one thing, but purposely spreading the deadly infection is a whole different situation.

[statman78]

What the <deleted> is wrong with the world today . . . kiddy fiddlers get to adopt children, this guy gets to infect (and ultimately kill) unsuspecting partners with HIV and is given "counselling" . . . when did the rights of the accused/perpetrator trump those of the innocent/victim?

Totally agree!

[klauskunkel]

That Seattle judge is in need of some counseling, stupid politically correctness makes you tiptoe around common sense.

[Strangebrew]

If he went to prison he would infect inmates ? Oh heck lock his butt up decrease the prison rolls.

[Fatherfluffybottom]

This man needs to go to Jail. He has killed 8 people. Fully knowing he has this deadly disease, he takes the decision upon himself

to spread the virus.

Scum.

[smedly]

I am shocked!

First I thought that he didn't know he had it.

But if he was diagnosed and informed in 2008 he is guilty of endangering life and health of many people.

Where is the root of Judge's leniency? The man is walking free carrying and using a time bomb against the public.

actually I view a drunk driver as a lot more careless than this guy - it's all about potential to harm or kill

I also know a lot of people here in LOS that boast about their extremely risky behaviour with casual ladies yet refuse to get tested for HIV or Hep, again equally as bad - high potential to contract and infect and not knowing you have it is no excuse in this case, the potential and understanding that you could have it and are spreading it are high and that is well understood by those involved - denial is no excuse for stupidity and risk

At the same time this guy is extremely irresponsible and could possibly have some mental issues, if he was getting treatment and being properly medicated the risk of passing the infection to someone is now understood to be near enough zero so there is no excuse for acting irresponsibly

Are you serious? Or was this a typo? You actually view a drunk driver as a lot more careless? Or did you mean a lot less careless?

I driver can be drunk without killing people and I'm sure this is most often the case. I don't know the risk ratio of drink drivers versus HIV carriers having unprotected sex but I'd prefer to be in the car with a drunk person than have unprotected sex with an HIV carrier.

rubbish

you are obviously a prolific drunk driver and also know little about HIV

when you step into a vehicle while drunk or drugged you have effectively become a lethal weapon with the potential to seriously injure or kill knowing full well of the situation - in my opinion the lowest of the low

go educate yourself and come back when you actually have a clue

and yes as mentioned above - there are two sides to this, exposing yourself to risk and exposing others - nothing would please me more than to see two drunk drivers crash into themselves and wipe each other out

killing another innocent road user while intoxicated is inexcusable period

As for someone having sexual relations with a stranger - they are fully aware of the risks and if they chose to ignore them then they are as much to blame and to continue that activity with multiple high risk partners is careless irresponsible for themselves and others, ask a dentist if they take any special precautions treating patients, of course they do - the level is the same for every patient - maximum 100% no exceptions and is their own responsibility regardless of the patient they are treating

[smedly]

This man needs to go to Jail. He has killed 8 people. Fully knowing he has this deadly disease, he takes the decision upon himself

to spread the virus.

Scum.

and the last time you got tested was when - how do you know you are not spreading, just as irresponsible

[GentlemanJim]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I am shocked!

First I thought that he didn't know he had it.

But if he was diagnosed and informed in 2008 he is guilty of endangering life and health of many people.

Where is the root of Judge's leniency? The man is walking free carrying and using a time bomb against the public.

actually I view a drunk driver as a lot more careless than this guy - it's all about potential to harm or kill

I also know a lot of people here in LOS that boast about their extremely risky behaviour with casual ladies yet refuse to get tested for HIV or Hep, again equally as bad - high potential to contract and infect and not knowing you have it is no excuse in this case, the potential and understanding that you could have it and are spreading it are high and that is well understood by those involved - denial is no excuse for stupidity and risk

At the same time this guy is extremely irresponsible and could possibly have some mental issues, if he was getting treatment and being properly medicated the risk of passing the infection to someone is now understood to be near enough zero so there is no excuse for acting irresponsibly

actually I view a drunk driver as a lot more careless than this guy - it's all about potential to harm or kill

Sorry, you have lost the plot here. Give me the choice of walking down the street knowing a drunk driver will pass me in a car in the next 10 mins, or being made to have unprotected sex with an HIV ridden ho then my risk management skills tell me which of the two situations I am most likely to be hurt by, and it is not the drunk driver. 30% of vehicle accidents are caused by drunk drivers, that means two thirds are caused by sober ones 100% of transfers of HIV are caused by one of the participants having HIV.

[connda]

It was my understanding that in the US there are laws on the books that address the issue of HIV positive individuals deliberately infecting other individuals as a crime. But then Seattle is a bastion of liberalism on the Western side of the state, as is most of large population centers on the West Coast. What do you expect?

Rule number one: always wear a condom. Really, the only true regulatory agency in your bedroom should be you. On the flip side of the coin, this guy should have been jailed.

[Jingthing]

Such laws would be state by state. Not federal. Some states have laws addressing this issue. Some don't.

In any case, people, if you are sleeping around just assume that everyone is potentially HIV positive ...

Such laws can't protect you. You need to grow up and PROTECT YOURSELF.

[connda]

What the <deleted> is wrong with the world today . . . kiddy fiddlers get to adopt children, this guy gets to infect (and ultimately kill) unsuspecting partners with HIV and is given "counselling" . . . when did the rights of the accused/perpetrator trump those of the innocent/victim?

Welcome to the spread of the 'nanny-state'. Liberalism at it's worst.

[Shurup]

AFAIK the laws require the HIV infected person to notify the other party of their condition.

Heck, I wouldn't even do a chick with 2 condoms on if I knew she was infected!

@smedly you must be drunk, go take a nap and come back later.

[Scott]

I am not trying to justify his behavior, but as noted there is the other half of the story. Did they agree to have unprotected sex? Did they know he was infected? There was a period in time some years back when it was a problem with people deliberately having sex with infected patients in order to get the infection -- silly, but they were apparently so nervous about getting it that once they were infected they could deal with it.

If there was active deception, if he denied it for example, then the charge should be greater.

The story, however, doesn't mention any complaints by any of the infected people.

[Twice shy]

He should have been marched out of the court and shot in the back of the head

He is a serial killer in my books and no compassion should be shown

[csabo]

I am shocked!

First I thought that he didn't know he had it.

But if he was diagnosed and informed in 2008 he is guilty of endangering life and health of many people.

Where is the root of Judge's leniency? The man is walking free carrying and using a time bomb against the public.

actually I view a drunk driver as a lot more careless than this guy - it's all about potential to harm or kill

I also know a lot of people here in LOS that boast about their extremely risky behaviour with casual ladies yet refuse to get tested for HIV or Hep, again equally as bad - high potential to contract and infect and not knowing you have it is no excuse in this case, the potential and understanding that you could have it and are spreading it are high and that is well understood by those involved - denial is no excuse for stupidity and risk

At the same time this guy is extremely irresponsible and could possibly have some mental issues, if he was getting treatment and being properly medicated the risk of passing the infection to someone is now understood to be near enough zero so there is no excuse for acting irresponsibly

Your point highlights the difference between culpable states of criminal intent those being "intentionally/knowingly" and "recklessly or the lesser negligently". The former always carries a stiffer criminal sentence for blatantly obvious reasons. The decision to drink without a prearranged plan to get to your final destination without driving under the influence is a bad idea but once inebriated the ability to reason is drastically diminished however intoxication has been abolished as an affirmative defense of criminal behavior for exactly this reason. BUT, there is still no way you can claim making an inebriated decision to drive intoxicated with a POTENTIAL to kill is worse then engaging in unprotected sexual relations while knowingly a carrier of a deadly illness that is transmitted by sexual relations.

The big question is why is this guy being allowed to commit this act repeatedly when others have been charged with this identical behavior as criminals??

Of course I am referring to legal practice in the US and even within the US laws and culpability vary from state to state but would someone castrate this guy already??? Maybe ship him of to Syria and let ISIS deal with him. They seem to have no qualms about removing body parts expeditiously with extreme prejudice and in a manner that would be most beneficial in this case.

[h90]

What the <deleted> is wrong with the world today . . . kiddy fiddlers get to adopt children, this guy gets to infect (and ultimately kill) unsuspecting partners with HIV and is given "counselling" . . . when did the rights of the accused/perpetrator trump those of the innocent/victim?

And at the same time putting people for years in jail for downloading some game or music......

As well I remember 30-40 years ago, you could agree or disagree with politicians and their ideology.....Now almost no one takes them serious anymore (but still don't vote for someone better)

[smedly]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I am shocked!

First I thought that he didn't know he had it.

But if he was diagnosed and informed in 2008 he is guilty of endangering life and health of many people.

Where is the root of Judge's leniency? The man is walking free carrying and using a time bomb against the public.

actually I view a drunk driver as a lot more careless than this guy - it's all about potential to harm or kill

I also know a lot of people here in LOS that boast about their extremely risky behaviour with casual ladies yet refuse to get tested for HIV or Hep, again equally as bad - high potential to contract and infect and not knowing you have it is no excuse in this case, the potential and understanding that you could have it and are spreading it are high and that is well understood by those involved - denial is no excuse for stupidity and risk

At the same time this guy is extremely irresponsible and could possibly have some mental issues, if he was getting treatment and being properly medicated the risk of passing the infection to someone is now understood to be near enough zero so there is no excuse for acting irresponsibly

actually I view a drunk driver as a lot more careless than this guy - it's all about potential to harm or kill

Sorry, you have lost the plot here. Give me the choice of walking down the street knowing a drunk driver will pass me in a car in the next 10 mins, or being made to have unprotected sex with an HIV ridden ho then my risk management skills tell me which of the two situations I am most likely to be hurt by, and it is not the drunk driver. 30% of vehicle accidents are caused by drunk drivers, that means two thirds are caused by sober ones 100% of transfers of HIV are caused by one of the participants having HIV.

you can think what you like and that is your opinion but unfortunately it is not as simple as you make out, there are two clear sides to this and it is complex, being made to have sex with an HIV ridden ho as you describe will never happen as you will never know - you have most likely done it already and got away with it, on the other hand if you have an encounter with a drunk driver as another road user you be very unlikely to get away unscathed - you see a car or other vehicle is a big heavy thing and will cause serious injury if you get hit by one, the chance increase exponentially if the driver is drunk

I'm only using the drunk driver example to try and put this into perspective and I am also aware of a considerable number of people that do it especially in Thailand and think it's ok - it is not ok - you are putting other people at extreme risk of serious injury or death

First the risks from both sides

There is the responsibility of an individual at reducing their own risks or exposure to danger in every thing they do

There is the responsibility of an individual to reduce the risk to others by their own actions in every thing they do

how you evaluate both these situations is based on having sound knowledge of the situation - it is obvious that many posters so far on this thread have little knowledge and base their contribution to this thread from pure ignorance of the facts

In saying that - the guy mentioned in the OP is extremely irresponsible and possibly criminal, as I mentioned before if he had taken responsibility for his condition and was being effectively treated then the risk to others is near enough Zero if not completely Zero, he took the responsible step of being tested (which most don't even though they know they should) but failed to follow through and get treatment - which would have protected himself and protected others from him, like already mentioned - this guy must have mental issues, no reasonably thinking person would do this

[smedly]

I am shocked!

First I thought that he didn't know he had it.

But if he was diagnosed and informed in 2008 he is guilty of endangering life and health of many people.

Where is the root of Judge's leniency? The man is walking free carrying and using a time bomb against the public.

actually I view a drunk driver as a lot more careless than this guy - it's all about potential to harm or kill

I also know a lot of people here in LOS that boast about their extremely risky behaviour with casual ladies yet refuse to get tested for HIV or Hep, again equally as bad - high potential to contract and infect and not knowing you have it is no excuse in this case, the potential and understanding that you could have it and are spreading it are high and that is well understood by those involved - denial is no excuse for stupidity and risk

At the same time this guy is extremely irresponsible and could possibly have some mental issues, if he was getting treatment and being properly medicated the risk of passing the infection to someone is now understood to be near enough zero so there is no excuse for acting irresponsibly

Your point highlights the difference between culpable states of criminal intent those being "intentionally/knowingly" and "recklessly or the lesser negligently". The former always carries a stiffer criminal sentence for blatantly obvious reasons. The decision to drink without a prearranged plan to get to your final destination without driving under the influence is a bad idea but once inebriated the ability to reason is drastically diminished however intoxication has been abolished as an affirmative defense of criminal behavior for exactly this reason. BUT, there is still no way you can claim making an inebriated decision to drive intoxicated with a POTENTIAL to kill is worse then engaging in unprotected sexual relations while knowingly a carrier of a deadly illness that is transmitted by sexual relations.

The big question is why is this guy being allowed to commit this act repeatedly when others have been charged with this identical behavior as criminals??

Of course I am referring to legal practice in the US and even within the US laws and culpability vary from state to state but would someone castrate this guy already??? Maybe ship him of to Syria and let ISIS deal with him. They seem to have no qualms about removing body parts expeditiously with extreme prejudice and in a manner that would be most beneficial in this case.

I agree with most of what you say except for one thing

HIV is no longer considered a deadly disease, it is considered to be a fully treatable cronic condition/illness and that is fact, which is why people posting on this thread need to do a little research before posting as I have already mentioned

[umbanda]

I understood that in the US a person tested, and knowing that it is HIV+, will be arrested if having sex without informing its partners about.

Probably he infected an informed partner or partners, and that is not considered a crime. I know non infected people having long time relationships with HIV+ people, but taking protections...and taking the risk of a "distraction" or a mistake. That may be the case here.

Also I know that sometimes HIV+ people that never was tested, do not have any symtoms, and do not use protection, its are spreding the virus to others.... and not just to a few ones. In the US it is say. "If you want to kill your self having fun...just have unprotected sex with a prostitute in Las Vegas"

I think that also aply to Thailand.....even more, because looks like unprotected sex here is the norm....to every kind of people.