Oklahoman May Have Infected Nearly 170 Women With HIV

[PfcHammer]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ibsys/20040505/lo_koco/2191747

Oklahoman May Have Infected Nearly 170 Women With HIV

1 hour, 11 minutes ago Add Local - KOCO ChannelOklahoma.com to My Yahoo!

Authorities in the state of Washington say an Oklahoma man may have infected up to 170 people with HIV (news - web sites).

Anthony Whitfield is charged with 12 counts of sexual assault in addition to charges of witness tampering and violating no-contact orders. He pleaded not guilty to all of the charges.

Eyewitness News 5 first reported on Whitfield in March after Oklahoma health officials said that he might have infected women in the Oklahoma City area. Officials confirmed that Whitfield returned to Oklahoma as recently as 2003 -- after he was diagnosed with HIV.

<chop>

[LifeDuringWartime]

1. if he did this conciously

could he go to jail?

[THUNDER HANDS]

2. maybe

I remember some case where a guy attacked a woman with a syrnge that supposedly had the HIV virus in it. I think he was prosecuted.

Anyone remember what I'm thinking of?

[progressivebydesign]

117. They're saying he did it maliciously..

.. he was angry about his condition, and concealed it to take down as many people as possible with him. Not a nice man.

[KissMyAsscroft]

3. This is idiotic. They are going to charge this guy?

Look, it sucks that they got HIV. But it takes 2 to tango, and no one forced them to have sex with this guy. The guy may be a scumbag, but they are all adults and have to take responsibility for their actions.

We can't start prosecuting people for this crap because it's a very slippery slope. If the guy knew, than obviously he is a scumbag but unless he raped the women than it is just as much their fault.

I don't think there would be any outcry if it was a woman who spread it to men because their is an implied "victim status" in the article which is total garbage. "He made me feel special, he made me feel like I was the only woman on earth, etc. etc."...So what! Imagine a guy saying that! That isn't a crime. When you want to sleep with someone, you get tested first. It's just as much your fault. When you reasch the age of consent you have free will to do whatever you want with your body sexually. If you make a mistake, you have to live with that.

Flame away if you want but I can't believe this guy is getting charged.

[Misunderestimator]

4. No, you've clearly got a concrete opinion on this

...wouldn't waste too much energy talking any sense to you. Too bad for you to live in such a dark place.

[KissMyAsscroft]

Please "talk some sense into me"

I'm open minded, and maybe there are angles I haven't considered.

[Misunderestimator]

35. Oh, what they hey, I'll give it a shot

...though I'm pretty sure it will be misconstrued.

For someone who has a fatal disease (and knows that they have that disease) to sleep with one woman or twenty thousand women without divulging his secret is tantamount to luring someone into your home and then shooting them.

Intent to commit first degree murder. And when one of them die later, he should be charged with murder.

[KissMyAsscroft]

65. Look...

Luring somone into your house and than shooting them is one thing.

Consensual sex is another.

These analogies do not add up.

You don't CONSENT to being shot. You consent to sex.

Do you see the difference?

[Misunderestimator]

73. Luring someone into your house

and pointing a gun at you, is the SAME thing as luring someone into your home under the false pretense that you are not a threat, or at least that you are not aware that you are a threat... to then knowingly infect them with a deadly disease.

See, I knew it would be a waste of time.

On edit...

Talk to the

[sybylla]

75. "Consentual" implies full disclosure

Do you really think 170 women would have willing had sex with this man if they had been told he had HIV/AIDS?

[Nalgenelover Snort]

116. Precisely

If the women had consented KNOWING that he had HIV, it would have been different. But it doesn't sound as though they did.

[yardwork]

41. I don't want to flame anyone, but there are some alternative angles.

The U.S. Constitution gives the government broad (and vague) rights to protect "the health" of citizens.

Interpretations of this have been extremely contentious throughout our history. The clause has been used in the past to enforce public health laws, including quarantines, during epidemics of infectious diseases such as yellow fever. State laws often mandate oversight and control of those with tuberculosis, for instance. Obviously these public health laws can conflict with rights against search and seizure, due process, etc.

So this is a grey area, and laws probably vary by state. However, I can definitely see some arguments on the side of quarantining or controlling people who are HIV positive, as has been done in the past with other venereal diseases, notably syphilis. On the other hand, there are also arguments against such laws.

I predict that eventually a case like this will end up in front of the Supreme Court. I hope that it isn't a Court dominated by Scalia clones, as it certainly will be if Bush* is reelected.

The Supreme Court is the single most important reason to vote Democratic in the upcoming presidential election!

[DoNotRefill]

57. I wouldn't support a quarantine....

but I DO support holding people culpable if they KNOW they have the disease and DELIBERATELY pass it on to others. If it's accidental, that's a very sad thing, and there shouldn't be culpability. But if you KNOW you have it, know how it is transmitted, but deliberately refuse to inform your partners in the hopes that they too catch it and die, you're a criminal.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

59. I wouldn't support quarantine since one HAS to have sex or exchange

body fluids to spread AIDS/HIV versus diseases such as tuberculosis which is airborne, but again with EVERY criminal act, intent is part and parcel of what MAKES it a criminal act.

(in essence saying I concur)

[KissMyAsscroft]

67. Well, than that is a different crime...

That isn't sexual assault.

If they want to write a new law and call it "Willful Spreading of a Viral Agent" and make it a clear crime to not tell someone of your HIV status, than that is a whole different thing.

As of now, they are charging him with sexual assault.

[DoNotRefill]

91. So, your problem is with the charge?

If he was charged with 170 counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter, you'd be OK with it?

Have you read the appropriate code? Under RCW 70.125.030, §7(g), sexual assault is defined as "crimes with a sexual motivation". His actions qualify, and it appears that he was charged correctly.

[DoNotRefill]

52. the main angle that needs to be considered...

is if he KNEW he was HIV positive, and refused to disclose that fact to his partners, and/or use protection, KNOWING that they would contract the disease and die because of it.

If you pass on a disease inadvertently, that's one thing. But to do it DELIBERATELY is something else, especially when it's incurable and fatal.

Ever hear of the phrase "depraved indifference to human life"? At the very least, he's guilty of attempted voluntary manslaughter. In some jurisdictions, it's 2nd degree murder.

He has killed those women just as surely as if he put a gun to their head and knowingly pulled the trigger.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Misunderestimator]

33. Deleted - responded to wrong post

[truthisfreedom]

5. so if you were HIV positive, you'd feel perfectly comfortable infecting

women whom you didn't inform?

i'm not sure if you're kind of freedom is the kind we need to be protecting in this country. when you are the carrier of a deadly communicable disease, your whole body becomes a lethal weapon.

[KissMyAsscroft]

8. You are implying that the other party are all victims.

I don't grant victim status to either willing party of adults. Period.

You have two consenting adults. What they do with their bodies is their responsibility, and they have to live with the reprecussions of their actions.

You know how they could have avoided being infected? They could have gone and gotten tested with the guy before they slept with him. I've gotten tested before I slept with someone, it's what you're supposed to do.

Everyone here wants the states to "stay out of the bedrooms" with regards to homosexuality and sodomy...well you know what? REPONSIBILITY comes with it. It means you have to be careful and watch who you sleep with.

[truthisfreedom]

well, now that you've clarified your position, i'll happily stand far away

from you, lest your disease spreads to me. a person who purposefully injures other people is not doing something "mutual." this guy WANTED to hurt people. and he accomplished it. that makes him dangerous. if you can't see that, you must be an anarchist.

[KissMyAsscroft]

16. You aren't understanding what I'm saying...

You aren't even making an arguement. You are just throwing emotional bombs everywhere.

I'm not an anarchist. I just believe that if you want freedom, than you have to accept responsibility.

Look, the guy is a scumbag ok? i've said that over and over.

But sex is 50/50. When you have sex with someone, you are allowing someone inside your body. YOU set the standards for who you allow inside you. The state doesn't get to set those standards...therefore, if something bad happens...that is YOUR PROBLEM. You can't call the state because YOU screwed up.

Now if the guy was slipping stuff in their drinks, or raping them...that is entirelly different.

I don't buy into the "poor me, Im a helpless women who was conned"....women are NOT helpless. They have every right to say, "Look, I like you a lot but I want us both to get tested"

Problem solved, no state invlovment, everyone is happy.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. So then you think the state has NO RESPONSIBILITY to take people

who knowingly infect others off the street? Is the state NOT a collective group of "responsible adults" who need to make "responsible choices?"

And again...another post where all your issues and hostilities with women seem to be entering the picture and yet you claim others are making emotional pleas? I think it's quite the reverse.

No MATTER the gender of the victim or the perp, knowing infecting others SHOULD be a crime.

While I don't negate that safe sex is the preferable alternative, it is NOT PRACTICAL public policy when dealing with people in the population who will KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY infect others. BTW, what if he was a minor and intentionally infected other minors? Doesn't that shoot holes through your reasoning?

[KissMyAsscroft]

80. Sure they do...but its not sexual assault..

Sexual assault implies that there was a victim. I am arguing that in a consenaul act there is no victim.

Therefore, it is in your best interest to think through who you have sex with and get tested first.

When you have freedom, you ahve to take responsibility. It's not the state's reponsibility to fix your mistakes with regards to sexual choices you make.

Now if they want to try and quarantine people with AIDS, or write a law regarding knowingly spreadin the disease, than that is different. That is a whole different arguement.

[DoNotRefill]

92. wrong. Read the code.

Sexual assault constitutes more than just rape under Washington law.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

104. Wrong again ....by your reasoning there are no car accident victims

Assumption of risk might be a civil issue, but it still would not preclude criminal prosecution.

Cops assume (not legally) some risks in their jobs by dealing with criminals...does that mean they aren't victims of a crime when murdered on the job? No...the only thing it means is that workers compensation coverage is their survivors sole remedy since the risks inherent in the job were known and therefore any third party claims arising towards the city, county or state for which they work would likely be tossed.

Finally, you seem to think crimes are DEFINED by the victim..they aren't...they are defined by the actions of the perpetrator.

[RapidCreek]

137. The woman consented to have sex

she did not consent to infection with the aids virus. The man is guilty of criminal negligence causing bodily harm through wanton and reckless disregard. That's against the LAW and it is tantamount to ASSUALT.

RC

[truthisfreedom]

48. no, i'm making this argument:

the guy PURPOSEFULLY INFECTED PEOPLE. this makes him a danger to society.

he had a fatal communicable disease and he spread it knowingly and willingly to up to 170 other people.

if he had spit on you, you might get infected. you'd certainly be upset. it seems apparent that it was his intention to wreak as much havoc and damage as he could. it's the authorities' responsibility to remove such a threat from the general population and, if they don't have the laws to deal with him, develop new legislation to do so.

this isn't a matter of snooping in our bedrooms. it is a matter of attempted murder, basically.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. Homosexuality and sodomy are NOT a threat to the general population

HIV/AIDS is. YOur reasoning is skewed. The PEOPLE would be COLLECTIVELY IRRESPONSIBLE to allow this act to not be punished.

Choice is I have sex with you KNOWING you are infected and CHOOSE not to use protection.

[KissMyAsscroft]

22. You are ignoring the other person!

My reasoning is sound. You are laying blame for sex on 1 person when there are 2 people involved.

It's every bit as stupid as getting the state involved because he slept with the girl and than broke her heart which made her commit suicide.

Look, the bottom line is that when you consent to sex, you consent to the consequences. Whatever those consequences may be. You are letting emotion cloud your judgement. Once you give up your rights, and you let the state legislate your bedroom, you have given up your freedom.

What happened to the CHOICE of the women to have SEX? So their CHOICE has no reprecussions? Oh, nevermind...she is a helpless WOMAN, and he is a CON-ARTIST...Oh, I see...all women are "VICTIMS"...

So if a hooker knowingly infects every guy on the block with AIDS, that's fine because the guy should have known better....whatever. This wouldn't even be news if it was a women infected the men because the implied victim status wouldn't be there.

You got a disease from sex? Tough luck. Next time get tested with the guy before you sleep with him...PROBLEM SOLVED.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. I made no assertions with regard to gender and would be consistent

whether it was a man who knowingly infected women or the reverse.

If a hooker did this it would be news. Frankly you seem to raise a number of hostilities towards women in your posts on this matter. Issues?

[KissMyAsscroft]

37. It's the tone of the article!

If a hooker did this it would nost certainly NOT be news!

And the srticle implies that the women are all VICTIMS! They were all "scammed"...that's bullshit! They knowingly had consensual sex...and they got burned. Tough shit! People get burned every day with regards to having sex!

Gee, maybe you should get TESTED before you have sex....just a thought.

It's not the state's reponsibility to make sure you don't sleep with an ASSHOLE!

R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y.

My problem is when women claim to want equality and than turn around and expect sympathy and victim status for choices that THEY MADE WITH THEIR OWN FREE WILL!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. No you have in issue with women and it is there for anyone who happens

onto this thread...it's so obvious even YOU should get it when reading your posts.

Funny the tone of the article didn't seem to strike this raw nerve in anyone else reading it.

As regards responsibility, funny..you don't think he should have any....goes back to my assertion that your posts are REDFLAGS for everyone reasding them except you apparently.

[KissMyAsscroft]

47. Good lord.

So did the article not imply that the women were scammed?

If it were the reverse, and it was a woman who infected a bunch of men...do you think that the article would have included "But, she was so pretty and made me feel so special...she made me feel like the only man on earth!"

The problem is that you don't even QUESTION the victim status you are granting these women! So my post seems "mean" because I want these people to be reponsible for their own actions with regards to who they sleep with. Imagine that! I want equality, and you want this victim status!

So I have issues with women because I want everyone to take responsibility for their actions in the bedroom?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

55. No you have issues with women because you react to this article as though

the women are prosecuting this man that created this epidemic in the state. The PEOPLE OF THE STATE of Oklahoma are prosecuting him.

My stand on the matter would be consistent if it were a woman and my stand would be consistent if it were a person who knowingly infected a nursery or preschool with tuberculosis or any other life threatening communicable disease and did so with malice or intent.

[KissMyAsscroft]

64. Wha?

"were a person who knowingly infected a nursery or preschool with tuberculosis "


Well, if the guy had sex with the preschoolers you would have a point!

AIDS is spread through consensual sex. Anyone who doesn't know that is ignorant.

Nothing you have typed has implied that you think that these women bear any reponsibility whatsoever.

That is why I am pointing out the victim angle, because you will not recognize it!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

68. Car accidents are spread through consensual driving

If I intentionally ram the car in front of me, should that get me off the hook since consenting adults know car accidents are a risk of driving?

[KissMyAsscroft]

138. Apples and Oranges...

Comparing driving a car to having consensual sex is so dumb I can barely even type this without laughing.

Maybe comparing a car to group sex would be closer or something but even that is idiotic.

When you let someone put their penis in your vagina, you are doing so with the knowledge that there are RISKS, among them STD's.

Now, it's not the government's reponsibility to make sure you sleep with the right people!

Once again, how hard is it to get tested? Doesn't that solve the problem?

What if they did make a law that said you had to tell everyone everything up front? How would they prosecute it? What if you didn't know?

The way I see it, we have 2 options. Make a lot of new laws, or tell people to use their common fucking SENSE and get TESTED before someone puts their penis inside you.

Your solution is murky and filled with holes. Your solution is riddled with all sorts of abuse!

My solution is deliciously simple! You get tested before you sleep with someone! It's almost foolproof and makes you have to take responsibility ofr who you sleep with!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

145. I am simply underscoring your faulty reasoning via analogy which is valid

Comparing driving a car to having consensual sex is so dumb I can barely even type this without laughing.

Only for the logic impaired as you appear to be. I was not comparing driving a car with consensual sex. I was comparing your faulty scenario wherein one assumes all risks even death and life threatening disease with THEIR actions which then absolves the party most proximate to cause for all responsibility. Based on your other hundred posts in this thread I can see why the thought might be a bit complex and out of your grasp.

Maybe comparing a car to group sex would be closer or something but even that is idiotic.

You lost me but for some reason I find myself comforted by the fact that you did.

When you let someone put their penis in your vagina, you are doing so with the knowledge that there are RISKS, among them STD's.

Thanks Dr. Ruth. Again, assumption of risk is a civil issue that might be relevAnt in a lawsuit but is meaningless where one intentionally spreads a life threatening disease to others without disclosure.

Now, it's not the government's reponsibility to make sure you sleep with the right people!

No but there IS a compelling public interest in taking people so sick that they would deliberately withhold info and infect others to the point of creating an epidemic off the streets. Do you get it yet? I'm not tired...I can continue.


Once again, how hard is it to get tested? Doesn't that solve the problem?

No it doesn't solve the problem as it may or may not be hard but it isn't feasible. Not everybody will get tested before unprotected sex...besides, it does not address the criminal intent of the perpetrator.



What if they did make a law that said you had to tell everyone everything up front? How would they prosecute it? What if you didn't know?

You're the one arguing for a different class of laws..I believe the law as it exists takes care of the one with willful intent.


The way I see it, we have 2 options. Make a lot of new laws, or tell people to use their common fucking SENSE and get TESTED before someone puts their penis inside you.

We don't need new laws. THe law as it is written addresses it. Once again, you switch back and forth so much I am getting whiplash.

Your solution is murky and filled with holes. Your solution is riddled with all sorts of abuse!

My solution is deliciously simple! You get tested before you sleep with someone! It's almost foolproof and makes you have to take responsibility ofr who you sleep with

Your solution is not a solution at all. Once again, the use of the word PENIS throughout this entire post indicates you have big time issues with women since throughout this entire thread, I have advocated the exact same remedy whether the victim was male, female or any variation of the two.

You really do have bigtime issues with women. You should do something about those and let rational people who can form a cogent argument deal with public policy. Things are just too contradictory in your personal world.

[KissMyAsscroft]

149. Let's do a compare and contrast...shall we?

Your one million long word post and analogies to car wrecks....

vs.

Get tested.


Now which is the simpler solution?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

151. Simpler solution: Prosecute people who demonstrate criminal intent

BTW...you do realize this guy WAS tested so in your scenario, people would have to get tested virtually every time they had sex...not so simple and not feasible.

But thanks for the lesson in circular reasoning. It was quite instructional.

[Old and In the Way]

89. It's not consensual when those facts are not presented.

How many of those women would have had sex, even protected sex, if he had made his disease known? Damn few, I'll bet.

[RapidCreek]

122. Here is a question for you....

If you go out on a date with a woman, you jump in the sack with her, she pulls a knife from under the bed and slits you throat while you're laying pipe....is it YOUR FAULT?

If not, how is it any different than a woman who kills you with the aids virus? If so, why?

RC

[DoNotRefill]

63. that's assinine.

"It's every bit as stupid as getting the state involved because he slept with the girl and than broke her heart which made her commit suicide."

In your hypothetical, the girl committed suicide. In the real situation, the man killed the girl, just as surely as if he had put a gun next to her head and then pulled the trigger.

You're ignoring the man's culpability for DELIBERATELY not giving NEEDED information to the partner.

If the man told his partners "I'm HIV positive", and they still decided to have sex, fine. That's the woman's choice. But deliberately not telling her? That's murder.

Let's look at it without the sex. Suppose two people decide to enter into a contract for the sale of some article. Let's say that the seller knows something about the product that he or she is selling that is material to the sale, like that the product has a problem which makes the normally safe product inherently dangerous. Both sides are entering into the deal of their free will, but the seller is failing to disclose pertinent information. That's CRIMINAL, it's called FRAUD. If the fraudulent statements cause death, it's manslaughter, or possibly murder, depending on the jurisdiction.

Why should the rules be different just because sex is involved?

[KissMyAsscroft]

87. Fine, you make valid points...

But that isn't sexual assault. I think this entire thread has illustrated the fact for a new clear law.

I just disagree that there is a "seller" and a "buyer" in sexual intercourse.

[DoNotRefill]

93. When in doubt...read the code.

He was charged appropriately. He should be grateful that he's not up on attempted voluntary manslaughter charges instead.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

95. No the legal definition of sexual assault in Oklahoma permits the charge

Sexual Assault I:The vaginal, anal, or oral penetration, however slight, by a sexual organ of another, or the vaginal or anal penetration, however slight, by any means, accomplished without effective consent and with a male or female who may be an acquaintance or a stranger.These behaviors are also known as rape, acquaintance rape, date rape and gang rape.



The word EFFECTIVE CONSENT in the definition means consent with full knowledge of ALL details which might preclude the consent.

[DoNotRefill]

96. NSMA...

he's charged under Washington law, not Oklahoma law. It doesn't matter, though, since the Washington code has a catch-all in it, and it applies to what he did.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

102. thanks..got it n/t

[KissMyAsscroft]

97. Well, that can be argued...

Effective consent can be argued that she consented to the act of sex knowing the potential consequences.

They need to write a new law. 20 bucks says this guy walks.

[Sterling]

121. Too funny

Your silly argument is torn to shreds and its societies fault. It’s been a while since I have seen such obtuse behavior on this board. Usually it comes from disrupters. You managed to ignore all the relevant facts to flam this thread up to 100 posts. You should be proud.

[KissMyAsscroft]

126. You should be proud that you want government in our bedrooms..

Despite supposedly being a Democrat.

Also, you do a great job of holding people accountable for their own actions.

But I guess getting tested before you let someone stick their penis inside you is just too much work for some people. They need Uncle Sam to hold ther hand and write a thousand new laws to legislate common sense.

Congrats.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

130. Funny..change the terms of the argument where it suits you?

In one post you argue there should be a specific law written to address this since it isn't sexual assault.

In the post above, you argue that we are letting the government in our bedrooms and that there are too many laws.

Very convenient but hardly consistent.

[KissMyAsscroft]

131. Wrong....

Wrong again.

I said the law shoud pertain to the "SPREAD OF A VIRAL AGENT"...as in a PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN...to keep a disease in check.

Nature already provides a perfect solution to the problem. The free market corrects itself in this case! Don't let someone you don't know very well fuck you! Get tested before you fuck! PROBLEM SOLVED. NO NEW LAWS NEEDED!

VOILA!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

133. Oh I see..so now we should prosecute people who spread colds?

It's taking every cell in my being not to call you an orifice.

And you DID argue for a new law in arguing that.

[KissMyAsscroft]

135. *slapping forehead in disbelief*

That isn't what I said. I'm talking about making it a crime to spread AIDS and requiring people to tell people that they have AIDS.

I didn't say anything about consensual sex. I don't want the government legislating sex unless there is sexual abuse or rape.

Consensual sex has risks. You can't legislate away all risk. It's idiotic to try.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

143. So willfully spreading the HIV virus does not rise to the level of abuse

with you?
You aren't the only person slapping your head in disbelief. As far as making it a crime to spread AIDS, that is what fundamentalists and Republicans attempted to do when the disease first surfaced.

And for the millionth time in this thread...since I DO BELIEVE you will get it with enough repetition, no one is trying to legislate risk but you..especially with your last post..you would prosecute those who have the disease but took precautions not to spread it. People with AIDS/HIV CAN have safe sex..under your scenario, they would be treated like lepers.

Under current law at least as outlined above by DNR, the person with criminal intent gets prosecuted and the person without criminal intent doesn't.

At this point, I really think you are embarrassing yourself in this thread.

Clearly infecting 170 people with HIV knowingly is sexual abuse except to a person who is "grabbing."

[RapidCreek]

139. Gee i guess the same defense could be used for just about

anything. She consented to life knowing the potential consequences.

RC

[KissMyAsscroft]

10. I didn't say the guy isn't the scum of the earth...

I said he didn't commit a crime. I'm not passing a value judgment, I'm just pointing out that with sexual freedom comes sexual responsibility and when you reach the age of 18 you have to realize that you have only one body and you have to protect it.

Like I said, this all could have been avoided if they went and got tested first. Problem solved.

When you have freedom, responsibility comes with it. This is just the dark side of that freedom, but it is better than the alternative which is the state deciding what happens in our bedrooms.

[DoNotRefill]

71. So, if you go to buy a car...

and a sleazy car salesman sells you a pinto, knowing that it's going to explode, and fails to mention the fact to you, he's not committed a crime? Where do you live where failure to provide information of a life-threatening condition is NOT a crime?

[KissMyAsscroft]

78. Some states have lemon laws and some don't...

Most places, it's "buyer beware." Either way, it's still not a good analogy because one person has power over the other (one person has the merchandise) and in sex, 2 people are sharing each other's bodies, so in essence both people are receiving "merchandise" Therefore the solution is to make the act "Use At Your Own Risk"...

Which means that, you better be damn careful who you sleep with and you better get tested. No one besides me will even ask why these women wouldn't demand that they both get tested! Everyone keeps ignoring this simple solution, and wanting to bring government into this!

Here's the foolproof method people! You both get tested together! problem solved!

If they want to write a specific law that states that it is leegal to withhold HIV status from a sexual partnet, than by all means...go ahead.

But charging this guy with sexual assault is wrong.

[DoNotRefill]

94. LOL!!!! Caveat emptor...

doesn't apply to deliberate omission of material facts.

It doesn't matter if it's contract law or sexual relations (which, if you think about it, is contractual in nature).

[RapidCreek]

141. Most places it's NOT buyer beware

that's why there are laws which require manufacturers to recall defective products they have sold. Particularily products which endanger the lives of those who have purchased them with the expectation that they are safe.

RC

[Blasphemer]

6. No flame... I just disagree

For me, it's similar to con artists who rip people off - investments scams, phony land deals, people who worm their way into the lives of vulnerable people and end up ripping them off, etc. I suppose all of those people could be considered dupes who deserved what was coming to them but I disagree. Precautions being taken could prevent being conned but lots of people fall victim anyway. People aren't perfect - doesn't mean the criminal should get away with it. If someone enrolled in classes in schools across the US, befriended her classmates and then got invited to their homes where she attempted to poison them that would clearly be a crime. I wouldn't blame the person who trusted a new "friend" and got screwed over. Knowingly infecting someone (or trying to) with a disease is the same in my mind.

[xchrom]

13. if there are two things a human will lie about

it's drug use and sex.
it's very difficult to control people's sexual behavior with any law -- and people will go to some extraordinary lengths to keep aspects of their sexual lives from being public.
it's why pressure must be kept on pharmeceuticals to create a cure and spend all their money on drugs that keep people alive{also a very good thing}.

[Wright Patman]

17. Sex addiction

is a lot like alcoholism, I think.

You have to admit you have a problem; not count on the pharmaceutical industry for a way to enable your continued abuse.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. Bullshit. He did it knowingly and with malice.

If your knowingly poisoned another individual, you would be punished. That is EXACT:Y what he did. If it were a matter of a few women and his intent was NOT demonstrable then I might agree with you...but 170 women? Bullshit.

[KissMyAsscroft]

25. Poisoning someone is not done with the other's consent.

You don't consent to be poisoned, therefore it is a crime.

You CONSENT to sex. You learn in the 5th grade that you can catch diseases from sex. When you consent to sex, you consent to possibly getting a disease, possibly getting pregnent, possibly getting your heart broken...it's why sex is a BIG DECISION.

You can't go crying to the state when you willingly have sex with someone and the outcome is bad.

His intent is IRRELEVANT. As long as the women had consencual sex than they are NOT VICTIMS. They were WILLING PARTICIPANTS. Too bad.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. Shows how much you know about the law...one thing that needs to be

demonstrated to prove a crime is intent.

[KissMyAsscroft]

40. So the fact they CONSENTED is irrelevant?

oh, that's right...they are poor helpless women...silly me.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

46. It's irrelevent with an E not an A and yes. They only consented to sex

not infection. Had he said, "I have HIV and want to have unprotected sex with you." I would then BUY your faulty reasoning.

Again with you women issues. My opinion on this matter would be consistent regardless of gender.

If he had accidently or UNKNOWINGLY infected 170 women, I would NOT advocate that he be punished and would advocate for your position. He knew and intentionally infected as many people as he could. Society NEEDS to respond when INTENT TO HARM is present.

Now...if I were you, I'd deal with all the hostilities you have expressed towards women in this thread. It can't be healthy for you in your relationships with women.

[KissMyAsscroft]

49. That's like consenting to sex, but not a baby!

Do you realize how ignorant that is! Ignorant with an A! lol!

Your posts refuse to place responsibility on the WOMEN! You are saying that these women are without BLAME, that they are VICTIMS!

They are NOT VICTIMS! That is my point! they consented to sex, and that means that you consent to the consequences! I had this figured out in 5th grade!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

62. That is correct. It is consenting to sex but not a baby which is why I am

Pro choice.

So if you drive down the street are you CONSENTING to be hit by a drunk driver since accidents happen and people are known to drive drunk?

By your twisted logic you seem to be saying so.

[KissMyAsscroft]

70. My twisted logic?

You are comparing consensual sex to a car accident! LOL!

What if it were genital warts, or herpes? Can you complain to the state about that too?

Not once in any of your posts have you said that the women in this bear ANY resonsibility for their choices.

Very telling.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

Again for the emotionally impaired poster with women issues

I did NOT state the "women" had any responsibility because my position would be the same were the victims male or female.

All sexual partners should operate with caution. That is SOUND PERSONAL POLICY. When it comes to ONE INDIVIDUAL creating an epidemic by knowingly intentionally having sex with 170 people while infected with the aids virus, the STATE should prosecute. TO do otherwise would be to grant permission to the condition thereby creating an epidemic through negligence.

Concerns about where it begins and ends are valid, but if someone KNOWINGLY infects others with a life threatening disease, they SHOULD be punished...I made it clear it was KNOWINGLY...and that distinguishes HIS responsibility from his partners' responsibility REGARDLESS of their gender...HE KNEW AND INTENDED to spread his disease, they DID NOT and had no way of knowing.

[KissMyAsscroft]

90. It's not the state's RESPONSIBILITY to make "sound personal policy"

That's up to the individual!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

98. When 170 people are involved..it becomes epidemic and epidemics are public

[KissMyAsscroft]

119. But that isnt sexual assault is my point!

If they want to write a new law, than by all means go ahead. But it isn't sexual assault.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

128. Yes it is based on the applicable laws.

And as I said below, I would argue against a new law as it would be used for a witch hunt against those who unknowingly spread the disease and would also end up being as big of a mess as automatic weapons laws that ban some weapons while not specifically addressing weapons just as dangerous and in a similar class.

In this manner, the assault is defined by the applicable law and is defined broadly to catch one who would peretrate such an act on an epidemic basis without including those that don't know.

What of they write a law and define it and it includes ONE life threatening communicable disease but not another?

[Old and In the Way]

101. Boy, are you confused.

Your fundies are showing. If a women has consensual sex and becomes pregnant, she knows the implied risks. She's not signing up for a potential death infection. If a women had HIV and knew it and didn't tell her partner, she'd be the criminal in that context.

You need to rethink your indefensible positions, KMA.

[truthisfreedom]

51. actually, irrelevant is spelled with an 'a'. fyi.

ir·rel·e·vant    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (-rl-vnt)
adj.
Unrelated to the matter being considered.
ir·rele·vant·ly adv.
Synonyms: irrelevant, extraneous, immaterial, impertinent
These adjectives mean not pertinent to the subject under consideration: an irrelevant comment; a question extraneous to the discussion; an objection that is immaterial; mentioned several impertinent facts.
Antonyms: relevant

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

58. I stand corrected. My bad.

[DoNotRefill]

76. yes, it IS irrelevant.

He failed to inform them of pertinent information about a medical condition that he KNEW would threaten their lives.

If you agree to go out to dinner with somebody, and they pull out a gun and shoot you dead in the restaurant, is it not a crime because they agreed to go to dinner with you?

The sex of the participants is immaterial. If a woman deliberately infected men (or if the parties were homosexual) they're just as guilty as this guy is. It ain't about gender.

[TahitiNut]

86. Yes it is ... unless it was forced down their throat.

The analogy is apt. While the victim may have eaten or drank the poisoned food or beverage CONSENTUALLY, they were murdered by fraud. It's just like consentual intercourse. If the fatal disease is known and kept secret (like poison), it's the same as poisoning.

[Old and In the Way]

100. If you know you have AIDS/HIV and don't tell your perspective partner

then you are poisoning them.

You offer a person a cup of coffee with rat poison in it and don't tell them you have put the poison in, is it logical to assume that the victim will know the coffee's poisoned? Of course not. If you tell them and they drink it anyway, then they take responsibility for their actions.

If you gave someone a cup of coffee, not knowing the sugar you put in it was rat posion, that's accidental manslaughter.

I don't know how you can argue this point, but it sounds like you do have issues with sex.

[RapidCreek]

144. What's the difference?

Heres something for you to consider. Let's say you meet a sexy babe at the bar. She's been rubbing your leg all night long and you are sprouting a big woodrow. She invites you to her home for a little pipe laying session. You tell her you both have to be tested for STD's first. You both test negative. The next week the same scenario takes place. You take her up on her offer. Go back to her place. You strip down and jump in the sack. She excuses herself to the bathroom. She comes out, lies on the bed, spreads her legs and says...common big fella...gimme that swollen purple tool. You sink Mr. Happy in to the holiest of holeys and you dick gets split in two. OUCH! Seems during her trip to freshen up, your lady stuck a razer blade in her special place. Your fault right? You willingly had sex! you can't go crying to the state cause you got a splayed dingus and nearly bled to death.

GET REAL.

BTW the above little story is based on truth....this was a practice of Vietcong whores.

RC

[progressivebydesign]

120. Yes. it was reported he KNEW he had HIV AND he was angry. N/T

[LizW]

12. "this guy may be a scumbag..." ??????

May be???? MAY BE???????

A healthy guy who has sex with 170 women is a scumbag. A guy who knows he has HIV and has sex with 170 women is a psychopath.

[KissMyAsscroft]

23. Fine. He IS a scumbag.

He is a scumbag who had CONSENSUAL sex with a lot of women. Not a crime.

[LizW]

88. He's not being prosecuted for having sex

he's being prosecuted for knowingly exposing them to a potentially fatal virus.

You seem to be arguing that their consent to the act of sex equals consent to any and all possible consequences of that act AND absolves him of criminal liability for what would be, if accomplished through any other means of transmission, attempted murder.

That is like saying if I pick up a hitchhiker and the hitchhiker murders me that the hitchhiker shouldn't be prosecuted because I knew that it was dangerous to let a stranger into my car.

[Rainbowreflect]

15. If someone is HIV positive & knows it. Then has sex with

another person with out telling them they are HIV + then they should be charged with assault at least. IMHO

[krkaufman]

18. How about if....?

What if Mr Whitfield, during each of his sexual conquests, put a six-shooter to the head of his "partner" without their knowing and pulled the trigger? Would he be guilty of the murder of those women where the bullet happened to be in the chamber?

Or use the same analogy but substitute the six-shooter with lacing their drinks with anthrax or some other biotoxin?

If the guy knew he had HIV, then he needs to be prosecuted -- on whatever charges are at the disposal of the prosecuters.

[KissMyAsscroft]

26. Well...

If the other partner consented to having a gun put to her head when she is having sex, than she is insane.

Look, everyone here is granting VICTIM STATUS to these women! They are NOT VICTIMS! They had consensual sex! Why is that so hard to understand?!

These analogies with poisoning and handguns are INSANE. When you have sex with someone there are RISKS!

What, are they going to start putting WARNING LABELS on all men now?!!

"CAUTION, THIS MAN MIGHT BE INFECTED WITH A DISEASE! USE CAUTION!"

Jesus!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. They had consensual sex with a man that KNEW he was infecting them

with AIDS.

Funny you seem to keep leaving that little scintilla of a detail OUT of this.

[KissMyAsscroft]

44. I'm not at all!

Look, he's a scumbag ok! But you know what? That's why you get tested before you sleep with someone you barely know! Seems pretty simple to me!

What was this guy gonna do? Fake a fricking blood test?!

Look, all of this talk about how bad this guy is just emotional ranting.

The FACT is that when you CONSENT to sex, you accept the consequences. Yes, even if the guy you are sleeping with is an ASSHOLE who has AIDS.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

50. No all your talk about women wanting equality and being "victims" is

emotional ranting.

Everyone knows there are risks to sex, but for society to ALLOW PEOPLE WHO WOULD INTENTIONALLY infect others with a fatal disease would make SOCIETY equally responsible.

It isn't Jane Doe versus ANthony Whitfield, it's the STATE OF OKLAHOMA versus Anthony Whitfield. The state of Oklahoma HAS a compelling public interest in the prosecution of this gentleman *barf* who single handedly (by virtue of HIS knowledge of his disease) created an epidemic in the state. I say singlehandedly because the people who he had sex with were only a party to sex..NOT a party to the intent to spread the HIV virus.

[krkaufman]

114. Thank you.

Indeed, it is K* who is emotionally ranting in this thread. He/she holds an untenable position relative to the facts in *THIS* case.

Walking down the street at night is dangerous, and I take some risk in doing so. My doing so, however, does not vindicate a mugger who robs and murders me.

Just ridiculous.

</participation>

[KissMyAsscroft]

124. Unless you are in the middle of having sex with everyone mugging you...

Look, Im not defending this guy's action! Im saying that he didn't commit a crime.

What he did was not sexual assault, and everyone has a responsibility of who they sleep with!

Why cant anyone say that the women in these cases are responsible for who they sleep with?! Why can no one admit this?

They weren't RAPED! They had consensual sex!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

132. Are you being intentionally obtuse and deliberate?

The ISSUE is whether he KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY infected his partners without their knowledge. Consent to sex is NOT consent to be murdered via a disease which he KNOWS he is spreading.

Again for those that require repetition to fucking GET IT. Had he TOLD all 170 partners that he was infected and they fucked him anyway, I would concur with your assessment.

[RapidCreek]

146. Wrong.

One cannot assess risk if a known risk is intentionally withheld from the person who is entering into an agreement.

How is an analogy of poisoning insane? Explain. That is EXACTLY what was done....this man intentionally poisoned his victims. There is no difference...between intentionally introducing poison via sex or intentionally introducing poison in a drink...NONE.

If I put a rubber on my penis and on the end of the rubber I rub some cyanide and I hump you and you die...did I murder you? Did I poison you? How about, instead of rubbing cyanide on the end of the rubber I rub some aids virus, I hump you and you get aids. Did I poison you? When you die have I murdered you?

Tell me what's insane about the analogy....exactly.

RC

[TX-RAT]

21. Damn right they should charge him

If he knew he had HIV and didn't inform his partners he's a fuckin criminal of the worst kind.

[KissMyAsscroft]

27. What does that make the women?

So the women aren't responsible with who they sleep with?

They aren't responsible for knowing the status of who they sleep with?

They aren't supposed to maybe get tested before they let some guy have sex with them!?

Oh, that's right...they are ALL VICTIMS! Poor, innocent, victims.

Spare me.

You sleep with someone, there are consequences...if you aren't ready for the consequences, than don't have sex. Simple as that.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

31. What's with all your women issues? Whether he had sex with women

or men and knowingly and intentionally infected them this would be a crime. I think you are bringing your WOMEN ISSUES into this.

[slothrop]

39. of course they are responsible

But the other person in the equation also has to be responsible ergo he tells them they will get aids, or he conceals it and faces later problems from legal realms

[KissMyAsscroft]

54. Where does it end?

What must either party disclose up front, or risk prosecution?

What is a women says that she is on the pill, and it turns out she isn't?

This whole thread is attacking me because I want BOTH parties to accept responsibility for their actions...so that means I have "woman issues" because I *gasp* expect them to understand the consequences of their actions! What a concept!

But everyone here seems to want it both ways. It's consenual sex only if you like the RESULT! It's consensual so long as the guy is NICE, and CUTE!...

Well, you know what. With freedowm comes reponsibility.

Not sure if the guy you are about to sleep with is infected with AIDS? Get tested together! Problem solved!

[skypilot]

61. I think that part of the problem is...

...that you don't sound as though you want the man to accept responsibility for his action. This thread has gotten somewhat long so I haven't read every post carefully, but I don't recall reading exactly how you think this man should take responsibility for what he has done. You say BOTH parties should be held responsible. How SHOULD this man be held responsible? Besides simply being called a scumbag?

[LizW]

105. Exactly

The women are paying the ultimate price for their failure to demand an HIV test before having sex with this guy. I'd say that's fairly severe karmic punishment for the transgression of not taking adequate care of themselves.

What about the guy's responsibility?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

66. Nobody is taking you to task for that at all..now who is being the victim?

This whole thread is attacking me because I want BOTH parties to accept responsibility for their actions...so that means I have "woman issues" because I *gasp* expect them to understand the consequences of their actions! What a concept!

Well cry me a fucking river!


People are taking you to task for not recognizing one who is infected by accident (i.e. NEITHER party knows they are infected) and one who is infected by a person INTENT to spread the disease.

That's where it begins and ends.

[Stuckinthebush]

36. KissMyAsscroft has a point that must be considered

I agree the guy in question is a scumbag that should spend eternity in whatever hell he believes in, however, as KMA says, it does take two people in this scenario.

I work in the HIV field and know that there are a number of people who have HIV that are having sex and not telling people. What makes the Oklahoma story so awful is that there were so many people involved.

There is a slippery slope here that we must take into account. Is anyone who has unprotected sex, and knows he or she has HIV, criminally liable? What if that person is with another person while high, and the other party knows but doesn't care at that moment? Does the HIV+ person have the same liability? What about people with other types of sexually transmitted diseases or communicable diseases like hepatitis?

People are responsible for their decisions. If a woman or a man has sex with another person, she or he makes the decision to do it with or without protection. Adults should know the risks involved.

We must do everything in our power to educate our youth about the dangers of HIV. We are thwarted at every turn by the schools, the government, parents, churches.... Why? Because we can't talk about sex in our society even though just about everyone does it.

While the guy in this case is a scumbag, one of the biggest problems in this story is that 170 people had sex without protection. What the hell were they thinking?

[DoNotRefill]

81. point by point:

"Is anyone who has unprotected sex, and knows he or she has HIV, criminally liable? "

Yes, if they fail to inform their partner.

"What if that person is with another person while high, and the other party knows but doesn't care at that moment?"

No, they told their partner, and their partner didn't care. The infected party did their duty.

"Does the HIV+ person have the same liability? What about people with other types of sexually transmitted diseases or communicable diseases like hepatitis?"

If they know they have it, know how it is spread, deliberately engage in behavior designed to spread it, and fail to inform the person they're infecting, they've committed a crime. In most cases, it's not fatal, and would qualify as assault. If it results in death, it's manslaughter at best, homicide at worst.

[Old and In the Way]

107. There's difference, I think.

If infection occurs but neither party is aware, then there is no crime. If a person knows he/she is infected and withholds this information from the other party, they are committing a crime.

[The Backlash Cometh]

82. Some states already have laws on the books which make it a criminal

act. It's a public safety issue and one that may insure that the human species may make it to the next century. Keep in mind that AIDS in Africa is the cause of a silent genocide. Nobody talks about it, but it's obviously clearing a massive amount of people. If we deal with the same huge numbers here in the U.S., it would overburden not just health agencies, but affect the economy. Wish it were as simple as you want to make it to be.

[fudge stripe cookays]

84. After reading this entire thread...

and your misogynistic posts all through it, I'm appalled.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[progressivebydesign]

118. There are witnesses that he did this knowingly..

..he KNEW he had HIV, and was angry about it. It was a great fuck-you to the women of the world.. Don't jump to conclusions. The story has been in washington for some time now, along with the details. They had originally thought he had only infected a few people.. but it appears, since he was diagnosed, he was very busy. He needs to go to jail if this is the case.

[mr_hat]

7. An Oklahoma man? An Oklahoman?

[demnan]

14. If he was charged with sexual assult

that implies that the sexual acts weren't mutual.

[KissMyAsscroft]

32. BINGO demman!

But they were all POOR HELPLESS WOMEN...BOO HOO!...

Women are all helpless and need to be protected from men! Boo-hoo!

(oh wait, a hooker infected a bunch of guys with AIDS? Well, dumbass had it coming to him...)

It's the double standard and the victim status that people will not recognize here.

Women want equality, right? Well, they also have to accept reponsibility. No one would give a rats ass if this happened to hundreds of men.

[Mandate My Ass]

45. Excuse me

No one would give a rats ass if this happened to hundreds of men.

Yeah, they would. The gender of the person who knowingly infects another (unsuspecting) person with a lethal disease is guilty of a crime. Period.

[Tiberius]

53. double standards

"No one would give a rats ass if this happened to hundreds of men."

So because of this double standard, then we shouldn't give a rat's ass if it happens to hundreds of women?

I personally don't give a rat's ass whose standard is whose. Whatever. If you have AIDS and you knowingly have sex with others, I think you should be charged with manslaughter, regardless of your gender.

Just because they consented to a risky behavior doesn't mean that the man is absolved of the consequences of knowingly putting these women in an extremely high-risk situation.

[KissMyAsscroft]

60. It wouldn't be news.

It would be "Moron Guys SHould have Known Better than to Sleep With a Skank"

That would be the headline.

Instead of "Poor Women Tricked By Cunning Man With AIDS"

That is the difference.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

77. Oklahoman May Have Infected Nearly 170 Women With HIV

Is the title of the article
It would be "Moron Guys SHould have Known Better than to Sleep With a Skank"

That would be the headline.

Instead of "Poor Women Tricked By Cunning Man With AIDS"

That is the difference


Just more proof that this is your issue with women and you are the one emoting all over this thread.

[Tiberius]

103. Dude, read carefully

I DO NOT CARE what the headline is. Justice is not based on headlines (even if your representation of those headlines is wildly exaggerated).

Not only that, but your interpretation of this incident as some sort of anti-male hysteria is twisted and paranoid.

[RapidCreek]

147. There is no double standard.

If you think there is, prove it.

RC

[Momgonepostal]

72. You seem to be the one making this a gender issue

I would find the guy just as horrible and his actions just as reprehensible if his partners had been men. I think what is awfuul about this story is that he alledgedly infected 179 OTHER PEOPLE, not 179 women.

It may not be a popular opinion in all circles, but like the other poster who mentioned it, I'd have to grant scumbag status to anyone who had had 179 sexual partners. Sorry if that offends any Don Juans (or Dona Juanas) out there. :-)

[DoNotRefill]

83. Umm....you seem to have a "woman fixation".

"(oh wait, a hooker infected a bunch of guys with AIDS? Well, dumbass had it coming to him...)"

If she spread it knowingly, she's committed a crime.

YOU are the only person in this thread who says it's not a crime for one person to deliberately infect another.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

19. any person who has unprotected sex is insane...imho

[Bridget Burke]

24. Anyone who doesn't use a seatbelt is insane.

But that doesn't excuse the drunk driver who runs into their car.

[KissMyAsscroft]

30. Last time I checked...

People don't consent to being hit by a drunk driver...

Insane analogy numer 28!

[chopper]

56. no,...

but people do consent to get inna car and drive on holidays (big days for drunk drivers), knowing full well that there is a .0whatever chance that they will get hit by one.

just like people who have unprotected sex know full well that there is a .0whatever chance that they could catch AIDS from the partner.

sorry, but the women here are the victims, even if they made the folly of having unprotected sex.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

69. Yes by your logic they do since they know it is a risk of driving

[Momgonepostal]

79. no, I think it's a good one

When I get behind the wheel, my goal may be to get from point A to point B, but I know I'm taking risks as well. No matter how carefully I drive, I still could be hit by a drunk. I don't exactly consent to it, but the fact is I know when I get behind the wheel, it COULD happen.

Those women likewise consented to sex, not but did not consent to HIV. We all know getting an STD is a risk we take, but we don't consent, any more than a victim of a drunk driver does.

[Bridget Burke]

148. I wasn't talking to you.

*

[wubbathompson]

20. There is a special place in hell

For pieces of crap like this guy

[damnraddem]

43. Meanwhile, some HIV-deniers claim that AIDS cannot be transmitted ...

heterosexually -- that that's a myth to cover up for its being a gay disease.

That it is predominantly transmitted heterosexually, and is most prevalent in Africa, is ignored.

The yahoos will continue such claims, no matter what the tragedy, now in Oklahoma.

[Solly Mack]

74. Shouldn't the charge be criminal negligence resulting in death?

Some of those infected will die from AIDS...the odds make it so.

From the article, the women interviewed suggest the relationships were consensual..making it NOT sexual assault. Nothing in the article, other than the charge itself, suggest otherwise..but people are often charged with whatever law the prosecution can think of that *might* could stick...multiple charges are often thrown at the accused just to get something to stick.

Was it a case of no other law on the books in Washington covering the "crime"?

Point being-without more info, I can't say, with complete authority, that the sex was not consensual.

A brush across the breast or bottom, that is unwanted, is also charged as sexual assault in some places-which in no way compares to someone with willful disregard for causing bodily harm to another...Rape is sometimes charged out as sexual battery.

The women may have consented to sexual intercourse but they did not consent to becoming infected with HIV...so, in that case-it could be said they were assaulted(if only by means of deception)

I'm just thinking out loud about all this..but shouldn't there be an actual charge on the books for those who knowingly infect another with HIV? or any STD, for that matter?

I know people will lie about sex..but HIV can be a death sentence and fear of punishment isn't a good enough reason to be excused for not informing your sexual partners.

Bottom-line: the article doesn't give enough facts...there is more to the story.

I do believe, however, that anyone who knowingly infects another with HIV should be charged criminally.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

106. I assume none of his sexual partners are dead yet

[Solly Mack]

109. Well, no, not yet.

......and some may never go full blown.

There really needs to be a specific charge for this type of thing.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

125. The reason I would argue against specificity is the same reason

some view weapons laws as applying to some weapons but not others of a similar class. I believe the law as outlined by DoNotRefill above in Washington state allows for a broad definition of sexual assault to catch cases like this while not unfairly targetting unknowing cases of HIV/STD's being spread. If one creates a specific law, then what about unknown communicable diseases not covered? What about people who did NOT know being prosecuted?

I think the assault laws in Washinton State as written are sufficient to cover this person's criminal intent without making criminals out of all HIV positive people who may erroneously or unknowingly infect another.

[Solly Mack]

129. You're right, of course

I failed to take into account an imperfect system. ..wishful thinking and all that.

Laws have to be carefully crafted and closely monitored because exploitation of the law will happen...

[Boomer]

108. It's a dangerously slippery slope

While I find some of nothingshocksmeanymore's rhetoric about women/prostitutes a bit extreme and even distasteful, I really do see his point. In this day and age, any sexual encounter should be presumed to carry the risk of contracting AIDs. Unfortunately, not even the mantra of "get a blood test" is foolproof since it can take up to 6 months for a newly infected person to convert and develop the telltale antibodies.

Prosecuting someone for "knowingly" infecting a sexual partner with AIDS presupposes you can prove that they knew, which then creates a powerful motivation for people NOT to get tested. If someone never submits to a blood test, but continues to have promiscuous sex without any protection, then chances are very good that they are spreading AIDS to all their sex partners. But it's not sexual assault since they are not specifically aware of the damage they are causing.

Quite a fine line, don't you think?

As for nothingshocksmeanymore's questionable contention that nobody would care if men were infected by women prostitutes, I'll counter with the statement that no one seems to care that gay men are infected by male partners who have AIDS and either fail to disclose that fact or lie that they are HIV-negative. The gay press has recounted such events for YEARS, so when I hear about a straight man doing the same thing my first reaction is "Ho hum, yeah it happens. Why is this news?" After all, if two gay men have unprotected sex and one of them ends up with AIDS, well, duh, sure, what did you expect?

This story is news because the partners in this little dance of death are *straight* -- not because women are the so-called "victims." And straight women and men aren't used to risking their life when they have unprotected sex.

--Boomer

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

111. I think you are confusing me with KissMyAsscroft

who raised those issues.
As far as the issue of risk is concerned, assumption of risk applies to civil issues wherein one party harms another but the act is not criminal. It does not apply to crim since laws punish crimes based on the nature of the crime not based on the nature of the victim.

I do fundamentally agree with your last paragraph, however.

[Boomer]

153. Ooops, my bad

Yikes! Sorry -- I did mistake the attribution.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

154. No worries, I knew which posts you were taking exception to

Just didn't want you to forever associate them with my name :D

[DoNotRefill]

112. Boomer...

I think you're confusing who says what.

I don't think NSMA has said that a woman's being the infecting party makes any difference, that was KMA.

And if a homosexual knowingly transmits HIV without informing the partner of the HIV+ status, it's every bit as much a crime as when heterosexuals do it.

This story is news not because the people are heterosexual, but rather because there are 170 potential first-generation victims.

[Boomer]

155. Thanks for the correction

You're right, I did confuse the two posters (Sorry!!)

As for the story being news, it's getting publicity because of the sheer number of women partners for this one man. There's a crass media titillation factor at work, because this is not an isolated incident and all the other similar cases among gay men infecting larger numbers of partners rarely get attention.

In both cases, the men are scum. I don't in any way condone or dismiss their actions. But I do question why this one is case is considered "newsworthy".

--Boomer

[Solly Mack]

113. A few things. NSMA is a woman.

She's also a very caring person. Just as you may be viewing this article through your own experiences, so may she...in fact, we all are..but that doesn't make any of us wrong, thoughtless or mean.

Yes, it is a slippery slope.

Actually, I care no matter the occupation and or orientation of the people involved.

In 1984, a friend of the family died of AIDS. He was my cousins onetime partner and they remained great friends after their break-up. Frank was just another cousin in my eyes. Frank's death happened during a time when people didn't want to acknowledge AIDS even existed much less talk about it openly.

Frank was infected by someone who knew he had "that disease"....I am still angry that person didn't tell Frank. Maybe Frank would have opted to take his chances anyway...but at least he would have had the choice. The man who killed Frank took away Frank's choice. That matters to me.

If I elect to pay a hooker for sex, that doesn't mean I elect to become infected with a disease. Now, we can say it's the chance we take for consorting with a certain type of "known element" for not being honest..or what have you..BUT...all that stems from America's backward thinking on sex. If we were a more honest society about sex, hookers wouldn't be that big of a deal and the wrath of god for "bad" behavior wouldn't be prevalent in our thinking. The "you got what you deserved for fucking around" thinking is just so destructive. My friend, Frank, did not get what he deserved. Yet there are those who will say his "lifestyle" killed him. No, a very inconsiderate and cowardly asshole killed him.

Do I want my husband to screw around with hookers? No but that doesn't mean if he does I want him to die because of it.

Sure, there are certain actions we should avoid simply because of the greatly increased dangers involved..well, ok..that I avoid. Since the dangers are too great for me to accept.

yes, it's news because they are talking about straight people..and far too many straights are in denial about their own sexual behavior.

but I'm coming from a perspective that doesn't preclude humans simply because of who and what they are...

I expect humans to behave better..meaning, I expect humans to tell each other.."hey, I have HIV" before sex takes palce. I expect a lot, I know. But treating each other decently is a goal I don't mind working toward...even if it's a fairytale goal.

Yes, some people don't know...and that is a mitigating factor.

[Sterling]

127. I wish people could be objective

So far I see one person who seems to hate women saying it's the chicks fault. Someone else projecting there persona;l abuse at the hands of men on this issue. Now you say "well it's been happening to the gays so it's about time it happen to straights".



Why can't we all just agree that intentionally infecting someone with deadly virus is wrong? It won't be a problem for the courts to put him away for this so all of you who are claiming this is on shacky legal ground are in serious denial. There really is no discussion here. Thank god some of you guys are not working for the DA.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

134. Agreed. Worse yet are people wanting a specific law for this

as it would be nothing more than a scarlet letter law for people with AIDS/HIV who don't knowingly spread the disease but do so by accident. I like that the catch all law can be expanded to include cases such as this without defining it disease process by disease process.

[Solly Mack]

136. I'm sorry I offended you

It was not my intention. I was taken aback by those who leaped to the conclusion that the sex wasn't consensual since the charge was sexual "assault"..and wondering, out loud, as I stated..if maybe a more specific charge wouldn't be better.

I did always stipulate "knowingly transmitted"..and I also made it plain that not knowing was a mitigating factor.

The man committed a crime if he knowingly infected others..but that does not mean he "assaulted" them sexually..which was all I was responding to..to the assumption that based on the charge, the sex was forced and not consensual...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

140. You didn't offend me at all and once I expressed my reservations

you got it...further up in the thread, KMA decided we should have laws about viral infections..can you see charges being pressed for people spreading colds and flus?

[Solly Mack]

142. Cold, flu, TB...anything, everything

Yes, it would happen.

[Boomer]

156. Ouch -- you missed my point

>>Now you say "well it's been happening to the gays so it's about time it happen to straights".<<

I NEVER said anything to this effect. My issue is with calling one story newsworthy and ignoring the same basic issue in the gay community. It's a hypocrisy to be appalled by one but not the other. I'm frankly appalled by BOTH, regardless of whether it's gay or straight couples who are involved.

One factor at work on cultural perceptions is that AIDS is such a pervasive aspect of the gay (male) community that it's more or less a given that unprotected sex is risky behavior. So there's less inclination to sympathize with the partners who are unwittingly infected. Now the straight community is given a jolting reminder that unprotected sex is dangerous, which is part of what makes *this* story hit the media waves. That and the titillating body count of how many women this one man has slept with, which I suspect is part of what gave this story a boost.

--Boomer

[flavorself]

85. interesting transmission rates

In the nation's largest and longest study of heterosexual HIV transmission, UCSF researchers found transmission rates remain extremely low. Those rates, they said, could be even lower by eliminating certain risk factors identified by the study.

The researchers estimate the odds of a an HIV-postive male infecting a female partner in an unprotected sexual encounter is about 9 in 10,000. The chances are even lower for female-to-male infections.

http://www.ucsf.edu/daybreak/1997/08/826_aids.htm

[DoNotRefill]

99. Unless, of course....

one of the partners is deliberately trying to infect the other. If that's the case, the partner trying to infect the other partner can do things to deliberately increase the chance of transmission.

[Blue_Tires]

115. I'm afraid I agree somewhat with KissMyAsscroft...

While I feel this incident is VERY tragic, and this guy of course deserves to do time (or worse), maybe if there weren't 170 women willing to have unprotected sex with him, and JUST MAYBE if a few of the women involved used a little common sense, then this wouldn't have had such far-reaching implications...

I dread to think how many more women there are out there that were infected but don't yet know, or how many men they infected in turn...I honestly thought the Magic Johnson case shed some light on the fact that you can't just romp around banging people you don't know without protection, just because he/she is rich, good looking, or says all the right things

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

123. If a few used "a little common sense" there would still be dozens of cases

HE had the disease, he KNEW he had the disease and he made sure his sex partners did NOT KNOW he had the disease. Were they careless and stupid? Yes. Carelessness and stupidity on their part does not preclude criminal intent on his part.

I only agree with KMA that all people should be careful in who they choose to have sex with and how they go about it. That is where our agreement begins and ends. What this person did was intentional, criminal and he deserves the greatest punishment imaginable under the letter of the law (short of the death penalty since I don't believe in the death penalty)

[Skittles]

152. I wonder how many women Magic infected

he's a f***ing scumbag but no news there huh?

[Blue_Tires]

157. probably a bunch

you'd be surprised at how many otherwise normal, right-minded women will throw all caution into the wind for the chance to bed a pro athlete, marraige or no...Back when I used to attend NBA games, groupies were sooooo blantant, yelling things out to players and milling around in the parking lots...I personally used to know a girl (college student) who ran through 5-10 NFL players, and in some cases, members of their entourage (no stars, though)...Not only did she not have any moral qualms whatsoever, she was actually proud, considering it some kind of life achievement...

Needless to say, I stopped talking to her..

[Nlighten1]

150. 170 Women?

He gets around don't he?

[fortyfeetunder]

158. I'd have to agree also with KMA

(and yes, I am a female...)

Yes it's tragic the man infected 170 women (and perhaps many more uncounted) but each of these women had a choice. If these women are that easily swayed by someone to submit their bodies to that individual without checking him out thoroughly beforehand, then they put themselves at risk of being infected.

It seems that man had a modus operandi of charming the women, as quoted in the article: "There was just something about him ... that he had the ability to make you feel that you were really special and beautiful, and you were the only woman in the world to him,"

(slapping hand on forehead) So one can be instantly charmed into bed? I wonder how many of these women jumped in this guy the very first night they met? And how many thought this guy was so desirable that they didn't even think of using any protection?

Sex in the 21st century ain't what it used to be...in the style of Johnnie Cochran:

If you don't get inspection
And you don't use protection
You're going in the wrong direction!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

159. No one is saying there is no responsibility on the part of people to

choose carefully.

That does NOT NEGATE the criminal intent of the perpetrator.

Again an analogy would be to say that in this economy with so many people out of work people assume the risk when carrying cash that they will get robbed. Horseshit. If someone does something with criminal intent then they should be treated accordingly.

[DoNotRefill]

161. so, if you go out to dinner and order something good to eat...

and the server gives you poisoned food, knowing it's poisoned, and you eat it and die, it's your fault for eating it? After all, it's possible that any food has been poisoned...

[w4rma]

160. If he knew, he needs to be locked up for mass murder, imho. (nt)