If You Knowingly Infect Someone with Aids Are You a Murderer?

2009-04-10 23:07:11

#1

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6296|Truthistan

If You Knowingly Infect Someone with Aids Are You a Murderer?

The short story. In Canada, a 37 year old guy with aids infected 7 women when he had sex with them without telling them he had aids. Two of the women died from aids related cancers.

They found him guilty of First Degree Murder. Aids Scumbag Convicted

In response to the conviction some people are crying that it will mean less people will get tested for aids if it places a responsibility of disclosure on them where they could go to jail for infecting others if they don't tell the other person they have aids. Are these people just selfish SOBs or what? It reminds me of the Valtex commercials for Herpes medication where people can't be bothered to take multiple pills, yah and maybe if you took a little more care and did the monotonous thing like wear a condom you might not have gotten herpes.

2009-04-10 23:16:23

#2

Roger Lesboules: Ah ben tabarnak!; +316|6879|Abitibi-Temiscamingue. Québec!

Hummm, ive never tho about that, charging someone as a murderer for that...I say its a good thing and shall be done from now on.

2009-04-10 23:21:53

#3

Reciprocity: Member; +721|6883|the dank(super) side of Oregon

send him down here to the states, we'll stick a needle in his arm and send him off to hell.

and yes, he's a mass murderer, same as any nut with a gun.

2009-04-11 00:09:07

#4

Bradt3hleader: Care [ ] - Don't care [x]; +121|6238

Reciprocity wrote:
send him down here to the states, we'll stick a needle in his arm and send him off to hell.

and yes, he's a mass murderer, same as any nut with a gun.

Well it's inhumane to kill people with AIDS like that, because they suffer a long time and it must be horrible. I say the noose, less expensive, make it public.

Why would somebody do that?

And isn't there a treatment so that you can't transmit AIDS through sex yet you still have it?

2009-04-11 00:26:13

#5

some_random_panda: Flamesuit essential; +454|6693

Bradt3hleader wrote:
Reciprocity wrote:
send him down here to the states, we'll stick a needle in his arm and send him off to hell.

and yes, he's a mass murderer, same as any nut with a gun.
Well it's inhumane to kill people with AIDS like that, because they suffer a long time and it must be horrible. I say the noose, less expensive, make it public.

Why would somebody do that?

And isn't there a treatment so that you can't transmit AIDS through sex yet you still have it?

Unless you can stop the flow of fluids (not including urine) from your body, you're going to be able to transmit HIV. That's the unfortunate reality. Even large quantities (very large) of saliva can infect another person with AIDS HIV, _{missed that one}.

Last edited by some_random_panda (2009-04-11 04:54:49)

2009-04-11 00:32:51

#6

Reciprocity: Member; +721|6883|the dank(super) side of Oregon

for christ sake, AIDS is a condition, HIV is the disease.

2009-04-11 00:34:43

#7

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6967|NT, like Mick Dundee

There was this dude who intentionally infected a massive amount of people here with AIDS down in Sydney.

He got some pretty hefty charges laid against him. He'd been tested for HIV, came up positive, but went on infecting as many people as possible. Sentenced to 15 years I think.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-04-11 01:36:57

#8

RavyGravy: Son.; +617|6708|NSW, Australia

Flecco wrote:
Sentenced to 15 years I think.

hard-fucking-core

2009-04-11 01:48:22

#9

rammunition: Fully Loaded; +143|6163

if you have aids and deliberately spread to other people i.e. on purpose, not taking the right precautions then YES!

if you don't know you have aids but spread to other people NO!

someone in the u.k. got sent to prision for spreading aids round, a year or 2 ago.

2009-04-11 03:06:58

#10

..teddy..jimmy: Member; +1,393|6951

Technically he could. He had the necessary intent, that death is a virtual certainty, and the act of committing murder will eventually occur because she will die.

2009-04-11 03:31:50

#11

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6883|SE London

..teddy..jimmy wrote:
Technically he could. He had the necessary intent, that death is a virtual certainty, and the act of committing murder will eventually occur because she will die.

If you call a 0.2% chance a virtual certainty.

That is (roughly speaking) the chance of catching HIV from an infected partner through a single act of heterosexual intercourse....

Which is why I think classing this as murder is wrong. Manslaughter would be fine, but for murder you need to establish intent and I don't think they could for a case like this. I think his intent was to get laid, not to kill them - but I don't know the details.

2009-04-11 03:52:02

#12

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6967|NT, like Mick Dundee

RavyGravy wrote:
Flecco wrote:
Sentenced to 15 years I think.
hard-fucking-core

15 years for having unprotected sex with people?

I'd say that's pretty srs bsns.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-04-11 04:13:04

#13

mafia996630: © 2009 Jeff Minard; +319|7065|d

it can only be murder if its pre-meditated,if not then its boring old manslaughter .

2009-04-11 07:34:14

#14

..teddy..jimmy: Member; +1,393|6951

Bertster7 wrote:
..teddy..jimmy wrote:
Technically he could. He had the necessary intent, that death is a virtual certainty, and the act of committing murder will eventually occur because she will die.
If you call a 0.2% chance a virtual certainty.

That is (roughly speaking) the chance of catching HIV from an infected partner through a single act of heterosexual intercourse....

Which is why I think classing this as murder is wrong. Manslaughter would be fine, but for murder you need to establish intent and I don't think they could for a case like this. I think his intent was to get laid, not to kill them - but I don't know the details.

'If You Knowingly Infect Someone with Aids Are You a Murderer'

Mens rea is satisfied rigggght there. His intent may be to get laid, but any decent prosecution could argue that knowingly infecting with aids should suffice any intent of murder. Woolin intention of virtual certainty may not necessarily be satisfied but so long as the actus reus has been satisfied and there is intent, murder could be a potential charge. You could even argue he had a duty of care, i.e, not to sleep with her knowing of his condition which would satisfy an omission to act (by not sleeping with her.)

Manslaughter? he wouldn't be able to claim provocation unless ofc she'd provoked him..."i bet you can't give me AIDS you weak weak man." There's no diminished responsibility because he ain't retarded.

Involuntary manslaughter? What he did was clearly voluntary

2009-04-11 07:34:57

#15

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6713|'Murka

mafia996630 wrote:
it can only be murder if its pre-meditated,if not then its boring old manslaughter .

It can still be murder even if it's not premeditated. That's just 1st degree murder.

@OP: Those people who say they would be less likely to get tested so they don't have to worry about disclosure are fucksticks. Self-absorbed fucksticks. If you think you may have ANY STD, you get tested. And you deal with it. If you don't want an STD, then don't engage in the behavior that spreads them.

And I know full well that you can get HIV via other methods, but the OP was talking about spreading it via sexual activity.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-04-11 07:37:01)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-04-11 07:35:21

#16

..teddy..jimmy: Member; +1,393|6951

mafia996630 wrote:
it can only be murder if its pre-meditated,if not then its boring old manslaughter .

That's not true at all.

R v Blaue- thin skull rule, take your victim as you find them. The defendant didn't intend to kill at the time but it happened because of the condition the victim was in.

Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2009-04-11 07:38:22)

2009-04-11 07:39:50

#17

..teddy..jimmy: Member; +1,393|6951

RavyGravy wrote:
Flecco wrote:
Sentenced to 15 years I think.
hard-fucking-core

he killed 7 people... guy deserves it tbh.

2009-04-11 08:03:15

#18

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6967|NT, like Mick Dundee

..teddy..jimmy wrote:
RavyGravy wrote:
Flecco wrote:
Sentenced to 15 years I think.
hard-fucking-core
he killed 7 people... guy deserves it tbh.

Nah I was talking about the Aussie guy.

His confession mentioned hundreds of victims or something. He intentionally set out to spread HIV once he found out he was infected.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-04-11 08:05:03

#19

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6707|North Carolina

Yes. Shoot the fucker in the head.

2009-04-11 09:51:45

#20

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6749|Chicago, IL

you are certainly a murderer, and one of the worst kinds, since your victims will suffer for years.

Turquoise wrote:
Shoot the fucker in the head.

2009-04-11 11:02:11

#21

Ajax_the_Great1: Dropped on request; +206|6949

Bertster7 wrote:
..teddy..jimmy wrote:
Technically he could. He had the necessary intent, that death is a virtual certainty, and the act of committing murder will eventually occur because she will die.
If you call a 0.2% chance a virtual certainty.

That is (roughly speaking) the chance of catching HIV from an infected partner through a single act of heterosexual intercourse....

Considering he infected 7 woman pretty much makes your statistics bullshit.

2009-04-11 11:03:51

#22

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6707|North Carolina

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
..teddy..jimmy wrote:
Technically he could. He had the necessary intent, that death is a virtual certainty, and the act of committing murder will eventually occur because she will die.
If you call a 0.2% chance a virtual certainty.

That is (roughly speaking) the chance of catching HIV from an infected partner through a single act of heterosexual intercourse....
Considering he infected 7 woman pretty much makes your statistics bullshit.

Not necessarily... It might just mean he fucked a lot of women.

...or he fucked each of the 7 a lot.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-04-11 11:06:03)

2009-04-11 11:07:51

#23

Ajax_the_Great1: Dropped on request; +206|6949

Turquoise wrote:
Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

If you call a 0.2% chance a virtual certainty.

That is (roughly speaking) the chance of catching HIV from an infected partner through a single act of heterosexual intercourse....
Considering he infected 7 woman pretty much makes your statistics bullshit.
Not necessarily... It might just mean he fucked a lot of women.

...or he fucked each of the 7 a lot.

Each fuck has a 1 in 500 chance of infecting them. I'm doubting he fucked all 7 of them 500 times or even more than 1 or 2 times.

2009-04-11 11:11:41

#24

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6707|North Carolina

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Considering he infected 7 woman pretty much makes your statistics bullshit.
Not necessarily... It might just mean he fucked a lot of women.

...or he fucked each of the 7 a lot.
Each fuck has a 1 in 500 chance of infecting them. I'm doubting he fucked all 7 of them 500 times or even more than 1 or 2 times.

If he was intending on spreading HIV to them, he could've gone the extra mile, if you know what I mean.

I'm sure the statistics Bert gave don't take into account ways that you can have sex that will increase the chances of spreading HIV.

For example, if the guy got blowjobs in addition to fucking her, I'm sure that would increase the chances somewhat.

2009-04-11 11:33:22

#25

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6296|Truthistan

Its harder for a man to get HIV from a woman during regular sex. I had heard that there hasn't been a recorded case of HIV being transmited from a woman to a man through regular sex.... but that's probably a myth.

Here are some stats
Male-to-female transmission is estimated to be eight times more likely than female-to-male; 3 in 1997, 38% of women contracted HIV through heterosexual contact, as opposed to 7% of men. Reasons for this are twofold: there are more men than women in the US infected with HIV, which increases the likelihood that women would have an infected sex partner; and HIV is more easily transmitted from men to women due to the greater exposed surface area in the female genital tract.

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2009-04-11 11:33:53)

BF2S Forums If You Knowingly Infect Someone with Aids Are You a Murderer?

Reciprocity wrote:

Bradt3hleader wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

Flecco wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

RavyGravy wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

RavyGravy wrote:

Flecco wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

RavyGravy wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Board footer