US man ordered to stop spreading HIV

[Jingthing]

There is no such national law in the USA.

[GentlemanJim]

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

<snip>

Sorry to disappoint you but I have never been with a 'ho' in all my life, clean, infected or not I wonder if I have missed something but I really think not.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

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.

Just to point out, there are no women victims involved in this case.

Your risk management skills are faulty.

[uptheos]

http://www.avert.org/criminal-transmission-hiv.htm

[Shurup]

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

Most people would consider to have a family at some point in their lives. With an HIV you're out, as well as your sex life would suffer too. You could live up to a 100 but it's not the life many would wish to live.

[Seastallion]

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

This man knew years ago. Your drunk driver comparison has some merit, but the wrong conclusion; This guy knew, and proceeded to purposely infect others.

Drive drunk, you might, possibly, one in how many thousands chance, kill someone. Have unprotected sex while HIV positive....what are the chances of passing on the infection? 1 in 10? Less?

He's a murderer.

I guess by law he's not a murderer because nobody is dead....yet. Chances are someone will die...

[Seastallion]

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

IF....IF, you have the money for the drugs.

Very significant qualifier.

And what quality of life will you have?

And if you do have money for medication, how does that hurt your finances?

You seem to be defending this guy. Why???

[smedly]

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

Most people would consider to have a family at some point in their lives. With an HIV you're out, as well as your sex life would suffer too. You could live up to a 100 but it's not the life many would wish to live.

I by no means consider myself an expert but I believe you are wrong on that also, people with HIV can in fact have uninfected children - I don't have time to look at it right now perhaps you can and come back and post your findings

[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

This man knew years ago. Your drunk driver comparison has some merit, but the wrong conclusion; This guy knew, and proceeded to purposely infect others.

Drive drunk, you might, possibly, one in how many thousands chance, kill someone. Have unprotected sex while HIV positive....what are the chances of passing on the infection? 1 in 10? Less?

He's a murderer.

I guess by law he's not a murderer because nobody is dead....yet. Chances are someone will die...

wrong again - go do some research before posting this nonesence

[Yann55]

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.

You obviously don't like dogs...

[F430murci]

Definitely need to familiarize yourself with applicable laws to formulate and educated opinion on this one. Notwithstanding the varying laws, I can say without a doubt that I would not have either protected or unprotected sex with an individual I knew had HIV.

Unfortunately, people get into the mood, lose common sense and may ask the newly found partner about diseases right before the act and how many times will the infected partner say "no diseases" or "on the pill" during heat of passion. I totally get that the uninfected person has some responsibility here, but we are talking human nature which sometimes I overrides common sense when the mood is right. Accordingly, it seems reasonable to place a very minimal burden on the infected person to at least tell the truth or to ensure use of protection to protect against transmission of a life changing disease.

Edited September 12, 2014 by F430murci

[GentlemanJim]

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.

Just to point out, there are no women victims involved in this case.

Your risk management skills are faulty.

You have completely lost me, please explain what you mean. That has gone wooosh! right over the top of my head. Where am I talking of the importance or relevence of either gender?

[smedly]

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

IF....IF, you have the money for the drugs.

Very significant qualifier.

And what quality of life will you have?

And if you do have money for medication, how does that hurt your finances?

You seem to be defending this guy. Why???

I am not defending him at all, I am putting it into perspective compared to stuff that other people do were they think they are squeaky clean - before posting about a subject like HIV - go and find out about it first, you will find that what you think you know is far from reality or accurate

most people have perceptions about things that by and large are mostly inaccurate

This is an extremely complex subject - the guy in the OP was 100% wrong on several levels - there is no defence for what he did but equally the other parties have a certain responsibility for themselves

My own experience is that before condoms come off I will insist on my partner and me being tested simply because there is no way to tell if you have it without a test - even then there are conditions, the simple truth is that you me or your partners will not know without a test,

If you are often exposing yourself to risky behaviour then you have an equal obligation to get yourself checked - not knowing is no excuse or substitute for your responsibility to others if you are knowingly hi risk, I have friends who do not use condoms and never get tested - that is just as irresponsible because the potential to infect someone else is there and as I said already it is widely accepted that if you are on effective treatment for HIV you cannot pass it on or the risk is so low it is of no significance, so people at high risk and refuse to get checked are the worst kind - they know they could be infected but carry on regardless - reckless and extremely irresponsible

anyway, this topic is now going round in circles, I'm just about done - go do some research

Edited September 12, 2014 by smedly

[tifino]

if only the scumbag had done the crime(s) in California - and wore the 3-strikes-you're-out penalty!!!

[Shurup]

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

Most people would consider to have a family at some point in their lives. With an HIV you're out, as well as your sex life would suffer too. You could live up to a 100 but it's not the life many would wish to live.

I by no means consider myself an expert but I believe you are wrong on that also, people with HIV can in fact have uninfected children - I don't have time to look at it right now perhaps you can and come back and post your findings

Without doing any new research, I can tell you what I already know from doing my research years back.

If a woman gets infected while pregnant, chances are the baby will come out "clean, the highest risk of passing the HIV in this case is during the birth time and perhaps with modern science and tech the risk could be minimized.

If a woman gets pregnant while HIV infected, the baby would be infected as well.

Like I said, my knowledge on this subject goes years back and perhaps more up to date research will prove me wrong, but regardless of this the guy is a scum and a criminal and deserves to be behind the bars at the very least.

[schvonsky1]

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.

Spot on all people who willingly infect others should be shot dead !!!!!

[motorsaimang]

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

This man knew years ago. Your drunk driver comparison has some merit, but the wrong conclusion; This guy knew, and proceeded to purposely infect others.

Drive drunk, you might, possibly, one in how many thousands chance, kill someone. Have unprotected sex while HIV positive....what are the chances of passing on the infection? 1 in 10? Less?

He's a murderer.

I guess by law he's not a murderer because nobody is dead....yet. Chances are someone will die...

The actual risk of HIV transfer through heterosexual sex is less than 1 in 1000.

Mind you I would get in a car with one of my friends who was mild-moderately drunk or high before having unprotected sex with someone who was HIV positive.

[motorsaimang]

Also in western countries people can live a full life. What surprises me is he was able to spread it so much. I believe other STIs and anal sex must of been involved.

[klauskunkel]

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

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

Waste not all your time, bandwidth and brainpower in nitpicking over the actions or inactions of an a**hole, but rain down scorn and derision on a judge who is pussyfooting around a case only to appear politically correct, instead of adhering to his mandate to protect the public.

[FM505]

Lazy judge... criminally negligent.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

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.

Just to point out, there are no women victims involved in this case.

Your risk management skills are faulty.

You have completely lost me, please explain what you mean. That has gone wooosh! right over the top of my head. Where am I talking of the importance or relevence of either gender?

The story is about a gay guy who puts his tackle in other gay guys rears. At act sure to spread HIV.

You then reply about having sex with a (assumed) HIV infected female hooker, which would be unlikely to spread HIV.

HIV is mainly spread by infected bodily fluids in contact with mucous membranes and minor injuries, heterosexual men are very low risk when having normal sex with infected women. More plainly, if you don't allow a man to put his penis in your bum, you are unlikely to catch HIV.

[Credo]

I have a close friend who is HIV+, in fact he actually had a long recovery from full-blown AIDS. He didn't let anyone stick their penis in his bum, but he did have a blood transfusion during surgery.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

I have a close friend who is HIV+, in fact he actually had a long recovery from full-blown AIDS. He didn't let anyone stick their penis in his bum, but he did have a blood transfusion during surgery.

I would say that too!

[kc4asia]

Known only as "AO"? Why should this murderer be protected. Publish his name and picture on the FRONT PAGE!

[daveAustin]

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.

What tripe! It takes two to tango? You say that so nonchalantly, sort of how an unfeeling android might do so. I think you would not be so flippant had this piece of work passed on HIV to your daughter to potentially develop AIDS and die a slow death.

He is not 'half of the equation', it is ALL on him. He is the one that knows he is HIV and should wrap up and warn others accordingly. Should be locked up and fined all of his worth for the treatment of his victims.

[daveAustin]

Known only as "AO"? Why should this murderer be protected. Publish his name and picture on the FRONT PAGE!

I agree. At times, our so called laws act to protect the perpetrator. It's pathetic and wrong. While punishments dished out in the Middle Eastern can seem barbaric for certain crimes, I can tell you they would know exactly the right thing to do in this case.

[Wasa]

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

This man knew years ago. Your drunk driver comparison has some merit, but the wrong conclusion; This guy knew, and proceeded to purposely infect others.

Drive drunk, you might, possibly, one in how many thousands chance, kill someone. Have unprotected sex while HIV positive....what are the chances of passing on the infection? 1 in 10? Less?

He's a murderer.

I guess by law he's not a murderer because nobody is dead....yet. Chances are someone will die...

Whoa.....slow down....if infection rates were that high half the world's population would be HIV+ by now........

We don't know if this man was engaging in homosexual or heterosexual sex? This factor by itself can make a significant variation in probability of transmission. To infect eight people in four years means he was very busy....

I did a lot of research on this recently as one of my friends here in Thailand (a female) became infected with HIV. Although I had never had sex with her it scared me enough to step back and do some research. The comments below are slightly skewed towards a male point of view which is how I am assuming most here on this forum would be assessing risk levels. A female would view it differently because they are, for obvious anatomical reasons, at a higher risk of infection.

From all the articles I've read, from the US Centre for Disease Control and from Australia where many excellent studies have been completed, in the case of heterosexual transmission the risk of transmission is generally considered to be-

male to female 0.08% or 1 in 1250 acts

female to male 0.04% or 1 in 2500 acts

Additionally, in the case of female to male transmission, the risk can be reduced a further 40-60% if the male is circumcised.

From what I understand the virus is blood borne and in the viral world, is somewhat of a weakling. Female to male transmission is very inefficient as the bodily fluids containing the virus need to find their way into a blood vessel in order to spread. That means it needs an opening of some sort through the skin. Something like a syphilitic or herpetic sore that is capable of rupturing through all layers of the epidermis or deep enough to reach blood vessels. Otherwise, the virus cannot enter the bloodstream.

[motorsaimang]

male to female 0.08% or 1 in 1250 acts

female to male 0.04% or 1 in 2500 acts

Additionally, in the case of female to male transmission, the risk can be reduced a further 40-60% if the male is circumcised.

From what I understand the virus is blood borne and in the viral world, is somewhat of a weakling. Female to male transmission is very inefficient as the bodily fluids containing the virus need to find their way into a blood vessel in order to spread. That means it needs an opening of some sort through the skin. Something like a syphilitic or herpetic sore that is capable of rupturing through all layers of the epidermis or deep enough to reach blood vessels. Otherwise, the virus cannot enter the bloodstream.

While the stats you posted are true and STIs and sores substantially increase infection rates HIV can be spread through vaginal fluid entering the urethra.

[Jingthing]

Heterosexual active males also being uncut increases the risk of transmission.

On the issue of laws, if we are talking about the U.S. and anal sex acts ... you'd have to be living under a rock to not know that unprotected passive anal sex acts are very high risk (active ones have risks too).

So I don't see much point in criminalizing not informing partners of HIV status. People should be using condoms. Period.

I think morally and ethically people really should feel obligated to tell all partners ... but not so realistic to expect everyone to behave so well. Again -- CONDOMS.

However, there are probably some unusual cases where some evil people really are intentionally trying to infect other people. I can see that should be criminalized but would be hard to prove.

There is also a strange cult of people who WANT to become infected. If that's their choice, insane as it is, not sure that would be criminal.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Jingthing

[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

This man knew years ago. Your drunk driver comparison has some merit, but the wrong conclusion; This guy knew, and proceeded to purposely infect others.

Drive drunk, you might, possibly, one in how many thousands chance, kill someone. Have unprotected sex while HIV positive....what are the chances of passing on the infection? 1 in 10? Less?

He's a murderer.

I guess by law he's not a murderer because nobody is dead....yet. Chances are someone will die...

Whoa.....slow down....if infection rates were that high half the world's population would be HIV+ by now........

We don't know if this man was engaging in homosexual or heterosexual sex? This factor by itself can make a significant variation in probability of transmission. To infect eight people in four years means he was very busy....

I did a lot of research on this recently as one of my friends here in Thailand (a female) became infected with HIV. Although I had never had sex with her it scared me enough to step back and do some research. The comments below are slightly skewed towards a male point of view which is how I am assuming most here on this forum would be assessing risk levels. A female would view it differently because they are, for obvious anatomical reasons, at a higher risk of infection.

From all the articles I've read, from the US Centre for Disease Control and from Australia where many excellent studies have been completed, in the case of heterosexual transmission the risk of transmission is generally considered to be-

male to female 0.08% or 1 in 1250 acts

female to male 0.04% or 1 in 2500 acts

Additionally, in the case of female to male transmission, the risk can be reduced a further 40-60% if the male is circumcised.

From what I understand the virus is blood borne and in the viral world, is somewhat of a weakling. Female to male transmission is very inefficient as the bodily fluids containing the virus need to find their way into a blood vessel in order to spread. That means it needs an opening of some sort through the skin. Something like a syphilitic or herpetic sore that is capable of rupturing through all layers of the epidermis or deep enough to reach blood vessels. Otherwise, the virus cannot enter the bloodstream.

good post and just to add as I believe it is always noteworthy

Someone on effective treatment cannot infect others - in the medical world most fall just slightly short of making this statement because there are other implications but it is generally understood to be the case

People who spread the HIV virus are generally either unaware of infection and/or unmedicated or are mentally disturbed as in the OP in this thread

Incidently - one factor that is not clear and would perhaps explain why the judge didn't take a stronger position, nowhere in the article does it say that those that this idiot infected did not know of his condition - it seems they possibly knew and carried on regardless - for me that makes 9 idiots