Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

"HIV-positive man a 'real and present danger,' court hear

Public Health AIDS 2007

  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#61 EChatty

EChatty

    Lurker Extaordinaire

  • SuperMod
  • 22,747 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 09:36 AM

I am not disputing that he went out to deliberately infect people, I am saying that the three women who were not drugged still chose to have unsafe sex with the man-even after he refused to wear a condom. Had they refused instead of allowing him to convince them that he was 'clean', they would not now be HIV+ I also said that he holds the majority of the blame for that-however, the women who chose to have unsafe sex also have some responsibility.

As for your analogy of the store owner-he has no way of knowing which customers are legit and which are robbers until someone points a gun or other weapon at him-there is no comparison there. Those women knew that unprotected sex-even if the man claims to be clean-was risky, and could have avoided that risk by telling him no.

Where did I ever say a woman who wears revealing clothing asks to be raped? That has nothing to do with three women who knowingly had unsafe sex.


#62 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 09:57 AM

View PostChatterbox, on Dec 30 2007, 03:51 AM, said:

You're welcome, Scott.

Chakoteya-it still doesn't negate the fact that the three women who weren't  drugged chose to engage in unsafe sex, therefore they hold some responsibility for the consequences-you can't put it all on the scum 100%-he holds the majority of the blame, but not all of it

You yourself said it-it's not impossible to stop-very hard, but not impossible-if these women were so turned on that they chose not to stop, even though he refused a condom, then yes, they should accept the consequences.

I suspect the fact that we're even arguing about "the three women who weren't drugged" means we've already established an unacceptable pattern of behavior for this guy. I'm not sure how we know for sure after the fact that the others weren't drugged as well.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#63 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 09:57 AM

The three women did not choose to have unsafe sex with an HIV infected person.   A person ought to be able to have a reasonable expectation that when someone says they're clean, they ARE clean, not going around trying to spread deadly viruses.

Lil
Posted Image

#64 EChatty

EChatty

    Lurker Extaordinaire

  • SuperMod
  • 22,747 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 02:02 PM

The article that Specs linked to said that two of the five infected were drugged and the other three agreed after he lied to them about being 'clean'.

I do agree with you Lil, it is a reasonable assumption-but if they did not know this man before agreeing to have sex with him, then it would have been better to err on the side of caution instead. Unprotected sex is still unprotected sex and can lead to more than just HIV or HepC-as we all know.

I still hold that they hold some small responsibility for what happened-It is horrible that it did happen, but they do have some small responsibility, and that is all that I am saying on this.


#65 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,328 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 02:11 PM

View PostBroph, on Dec 30 2007, 09:24 AM, said:

View PostChatterbox, on Dec 30 2007, 11:51 AM, said:

Chakoteya-it still doesn't negate the fact that the three women who weren't  drugged chose to engage in unsafe sex, therefore they hold some responsibility for the consequences-you can't put it all on the scum 100%-he holds the majority of the blame, but not all of it

But under that same logic, a storeowner who gets robbed holds some responsibility for not keeping out the robber, who knew that he was a robber and knew that he was going to rob the store.

Some people say that a girl who wears a short skirt who gets raped was "asking for it", but we all know this to be ridiculous logic.

2 people who don't know their condition having unsafe sex is reckless. It's bad decision-making. But when someone knows that he's HIV positive and convinces a woman to have unprotected sex, hiding his condition, it's no longer about being reckless and making a bad decision on his part. Let's face it - he wasn't having unsafe sex with these women just to have unsafe sex. His intention was to infect the women! He was getting off on the fact that he was taking a disease given to him and passing it on to others.


Actually - the store owner analogy is a great one.  One expects a store owner to take reasonable precautions.  Put locks on doors, alarms, etc.   BUT - the failure of the store owner to do so, while exposing the store owner as profoundly stupid, does not change the fact that the robber is a criminal.  The insurance companies may deny the store owner some portion of insurance money, for not taking proper precautions, but the criminal justice system isn't going to let the robber walk just because the store owner didn't have locks on his doors.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#66 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 02:14 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on Dec 30 2007, 09:57 AM, said:

The three women did not choose to have unsafe sex with an HIV infected person.   A person ought to be able to have a reasonable expectation that when someone says they're clean, they ARE clean, not going around trying to spread deadly viruses.

Lil

It's just that sort of "logic" that results in case after case of seroconversion.  "Well, if he says he's clean, I guess we don't need to use condoms..."  

BTW, you're aware, aren't you, that the vast majority of HIV+ people don't know they're HIV+? So if/when they profess to be clean, they aren't lying so much as they're mistaken.  

Yet another reason why anyone who asks for unsafe sex should be ASSUMED to be HIV+.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#67 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 02:19 PM

^I agree with Scott on that count. What the three undrugged women did was stupid. Really dumb. And they deserve to suffer the consequences of their actions.

That does not, in my mind, negate in the slightest the crime commited by someone who KNOWS they're HIV+, doesn't disclose it to their partners, and doesn't use safe sex. As far as I'm concerned, it damn well SHOULD be a crime and a little jail time wouldn't hurt.

Responsibility all around is the safest kind of sex. It's stunning to me that anyone, in this day and age, can let their libido override their own personal responsibility to keep themselves safe.

If you don't know if the other person is safe (or, for that matter, if you've never been tested and dom't know your HIV status, which IMO is really dumb), then a condom is always the best bet. And any partner who won't wear one to keep both partners safe ought not to get consensual sex. Period.

Edited by Rhea, 30 December 2007 - 02:21 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#68 EChatty

EChatty

    Lurker Extaordinaire

  • SuperMod
  • 22,747 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 02:34 PM

Thank you, Rhea and Scott.

I never said that what he did was not criminal-the date rape proved that and he should get time for that, plus deliberately misleading the other women he slept with so that he could spread his disease. I was just saying that all three women were very stupid and were partly responsible for contracting the HIV by allowing him the unprotected sex. I hate that they now have to live with it-but they did bring it on themselves.

I really wouldn't be surprised if more of the women he slept with than just the five turn up HIV+


#69 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 02:57 PM

^I wouldn't take that bet, because the answer is bound to be "yes."

May I just add that I have appreciated the civil level of discourse on this thread? Things got pretty heated there for a while but we seem to have met in the middle and nobody had to urge castration (not a bad idea ;)) or hanging the guy for us to get there.

Edited by Rhea, 30 December 2007 - 02:59 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#70 EChatty

EChatty

    Lurker Extaordinaire

  • SuperMod
  • 22,747 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 03:15 PM

Yes, I do appreciate that the discourse has been civil-for the most part-and I thank everyone for keeping it that way.

It's a terrible thing to happen to anyone, but if more people would take better precautions, it won't happen nearly as often.


#71 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 05:44 PM

View PostChatterbox, on Dec 30 2007, 02:36 PM, said:

As for your analogy of the store owner-he has no way of knowing which customers are legit and which are robbers until someone points a gun or other weapon at him-there is no comparison there. Those women knew that unprotected sex-even if the man claims to be clean-was risky, and could have avoided that risk by telling him no.

Of course there's a comparison, and I never said anything about guns or weapons. There are thieves that shoplift, for instance. A storeowner knows that anyone entering the store might be a robber/thief. It's up to him to take precautions, but in the end, it's the thief who is the one doing wrong.

Quote

Where did I ever say a woman who wears revealing clothing asks to be raped? That has nothing to do with three women who knowingly had unsafe sex.[/color]

I never said you said anything about women wearing revealing clothing. I said "some people". In my example, though, I'm showing you another instance where people put blame on the victim for having been victimized.

#72 EChatty

EChatty

    Lurker Extaordinaire

  • SuperMod
  • 22,747 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 09:21 PM

I was not putting the blame on the victims-I clearly stated that the man held the majority of the blame for lying to those women, however, the women who were not drugged did not take precautions against being infected by any number of other STDs  by choosing to engage in unprotected sex. Therefore they held a small responsibility for being infected. It might be miniscule, compared to his blame, but it is there.

I'm not saying that they deserved to be infected, but that they held a responsibility to protect themselves if they were going to engage in sex, and they did not.


#73 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 10:58 PM

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 30 2007, 11:14 AM, said:

View PostBad Wolf, on Dec 30 2007, 09:57 AM, said:

The three women did not choose to have unsafe sex with an HIV infected person.   A person ought to be able to have a reasonable expectation that when someone says they're clean, they ARE clean, not going around trying to spread deadly viruses.

Lil

It's just that sort of "logic" that results in case after case of seroconversion.  "Well, if he says he's clean, I guess we don't need to use condoms..."  


Of course it's wise to use condoms.   But in a civil lawsuit this guy would be liable for fraud and the reliance would be reasonable because it's not supposed to be "expected" that someone's lying.

Quote

BTW, you're aware, aren't you, that the vast majority of HIV+ people don't know they're HIV+? So if/when they profess to be clean, they aren't lying so much as they're mistaken.

Of course.  Hence my belief that it should ALWAYS be safe sex.  But we're not talking in general here, we're talking about THIS case and in THIS case the guy DID KNOW HE WAS INFECTED.

If you want to discuss the completely different topic of the unwitting (as opposed to INTENTIONAL as in THIS case) transfer of the virus I'm sure there's room around here for another thread or something.:)

Lil

Edited by Bad Wolf, 30 December 2007 - 10:59 PM.

Posted Image

#74 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 11:02 PM

While I agree that the women who had unprotected sex were stupid, I don't bleive they deserved what they got, no one deserves aids. I guess we should all be thankful that our own unwise, irresponsible or young and flatout foolish, reckless behavors on the path to maturity didn't result in a potential death sentence or shortened lifespan.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#75 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 11:53 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on Dec 30 2007, 10:58 PM, said:

If you want to discuss the completely different topic of the unwitting (as opposed to INTENTIONAL as in THIS case) transfer of the virus I'm sure there's room around here for another thread or something.:)

Lil

Yes someone who did not know they were infected is a totally different situation. Even as bloodthirsty as my POV is about someone who knew and deliberatly did not tell his partners. Someone who did not know while there is blame to be thrown around there was no one knowingly passing the disease around.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#76 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 31 December 2007 - 12:09 AM

View PostBad Wolf, on Dec 30 2007, 10:58 PM, said:

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 30 2007, 11:14 AM, said:

View PostBad Wolf, on Dec 30 2007, 09:57 AM, said:

The three women did not choose to have unsafe sex with an HIV infected person.   A person ought to be able to have a reasonable expectation that when someone says they're clean, they ARE clean, not going around trying to spread deadly viruses.

Lil

It's just that sort of "logic" that results in case after case of seroconversion.  "Well, if he says he's clean, I guess we don't need to use condoms..."  


Of course it's wise to use condoms.   But in a civil lawsuit this guy would be liable for fraud and the reliance would be reasonable because it's not supposed to be "expected" that someone's lying.

That's nice--They can sue all they like, but at the end of the lawsuit, they'll still be HIV+.  

Try to take a broader view, Counselor -- a view that does not begin and end in a court room, but in the real world: do you not see why NO ONE SHOULD EVER TELL ANYONE they have "a reasonable expectation that when someone says they're clean, they ARE clean" ????  

Given the world we live in, that expectation is anything BUT reasonable.  That expectation is almost guaranteed to end up with your seroconversion (if you're gay, or are straight but dig anal, subtract the "almost").  Instead, we should understand that even when someone professes to be clean, the responsibility for protecting you remains with YOU.  Act as if your life depends on it--'cause it may.  That should be the message people take away from this case.

Quote

But we're not talking in general here, we're talking about THIS case and in THIS case the guy DID KNOW HE WAS INFECTED.

If you want to discuss the completely different topic of the unwitting (as opposed to INTENTIONAL as in THIS case) transfer of the virus I'm sure there's room around here for another thread or something.:)

I think it's a little late to ask that a broader take on the issue (which is hardly a "completely different topic") be shunted into another thread, since we've been discussing both the general and the specific all along.  Indeed, it wasn't until halfway down this thread that we even found out (thanks to Spectacles) what the facts of this case were, because the original article was vague to the point of being misleading.

Edited by ScottEVill, 31 December 2007 - 12:09 AM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#77 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 31 December 2007 - 12:39 AM

Your assumptions that my world view is not...worldly are insulting and really not conducive to civil discussion.  Let me know when you want to talk without being insulting and you are prepared to stay on topic rather than constructing arguments about other topics to make yourself look right.

Ye gods, I never thought I'd do it but for my own sanity, ignore function engaged.
Posted Image

#78 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 31 December 2007 - 12:41 AM

Oh for crying out loud, I can't block ignore mods.  *sigh*  Okay then I guess I'll have to do it the old fashioned way.
Posted Image

#79 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 31 December 2007 - 02:17 AM

I agree with Chatty and some of the others that the girls who were not drugged bear some responsibility, though I still put most of the blame on the guy who lied about his HIV status to manipulate girls into bed with him.  It sounds alot like he was preying on younger, more naive women to begin with, who often have a harder time saying "no" and may have some truely awful ideas about sex.  I know some highschoolers believe you can only get STDs from vaginal intercourse, so anal is ok.  Or that girls who bring a condom with them on a date are automatically sluts.  So with all this misinformation out there, plus simple lack of experiance, makes them easy victims.  I know when I was younger my creepy-guy senses were not well developed.

And even when you do know about transmission of HIV and other STDs it is still hard to keep straight ideas about love and sex and they way they intertwine.  Many people out there will think something along the lines of: well, if I'm willing to have sex with him, it's because I love him, and if I love him I ought to trust him, so I'll trust him when he says he's clean.  Or they start a relationship and once sex starts happening then they think they are in love (particularly if it's their first) and even if condoms were wore to begin with, they then disappear.  It's really hard to hear someone you love say "but don't you trust me?  If you trusted me, then you'd let me do this..."
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#80 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 31 December 2007 - 04:08 AM

Quote

Try to take a broader view, Counselor -- a view that does not begin and end in a court room, but in the real world: do you not see why NO ONE SHOULD EVER TELL ANYONE they have "a reasonable expectation that when someone says they're clean, they ARE clean" ????
I have a reasonable expectation that young women who are permanently damaged by a lying disease spreading creep...won't get a sanctimonious lecture on how they share responsibility for their own victimization. I also have a reasonable expectation that people will discern the difference, between poor judgment, and an act of premeditated evil.

But as we can see, in the "real world" human beings fall short of reasonable expectations all the time. This doesn't mean the expectation that a man will be honest about a life threatening communicable disease, is suddenly "unreasonable". We shouldn't lower the morality bar for this HIV spreading slimeball and guys like him.  

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Public Health, AIDS, 2007

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users