Intentionally spreads HIV and blames victim in court room

[Vitamin]

Ah yes, slut shaming. That's a great way to get the government to change the laws for us!

With the moronic comparison of rape on the right and the completely counter-productive slut shaming coming from the left, it's no wonder that the law is so leinent. How about everybody get their heads out of their own asses, and actually stand up for what happened to victim. Then we might actually be able to get this law changed.

 

[star-warrior]

I don't think it was slut shaming. We've all seen the advert

Protect yourself, no matter what.

 

[Vitamin]

I don't think it was slut shaming. We've all seen the advert

Protect yourself, no matter what.

Blaming the victim is NOT going to get stricter sentences passed. That's a fact of life.

 

[Willie Boy]

Ah yes, slut shaming. That's a great way to get the government to change the laws for us!

With the moronic comparison of rape on the right and the completely counter-productive slut shaming coming from the left, it's no wonder that the law is so leinent. How about everybody get their heads out of their own asses, and actually stand up for what happened to victim. Then we might actually be able to get this law changed.

Blaming the victim is NOT going to get stricter sentences passed. That's a fact of life.

The "victim's" own actions blame him for his part in this. What kind of stupid moron meets up with a complete and total stranger he found on a hook-up site, someone he doesn't know the first thing about and CHOOSES to have UNPROTECTED SEX without even ASKING OR CARING if he is clean. The kind that ENDS UP WITH HIV. We are not absolving the asshole who spread it for his crime, but face it, if there weren't idiots so willing to jump into bed with these assholes and have unprotected sex it wouldn't be happening so easily.

If you get out in your car and run a red light, getting hit and suffering a spinal injury who is at fault? You AND the other driver. The guy who hit you is responsible because he hit you, but you also are to blame because you stupidly did something you knew could lead to just that, a wreck. You can't be held blameless for disobeying good common sense because you just couldn't be bothered. How about you get your own head out of your ass and realize sometimes the victim ain't really much of a victim.

 

[Kulindahr]

Both parties are 100% responsible. You are always responsible for your own safety, whether it's remembering to put on sunscreen or wearing a condom. If you make the decision to trust someone, you are responsible for that decision.

But they're not responsible for the same thing: the HIV+ jerk is responsible for attacking the other guy. That's a whole different thing than neglecting to provide for your own safety.

The most appropriate punishment would be to require him to pay the medical costs of his victim(s) for life.

 

[Vitamin]

Both parties are 100% responsible. You are always responsible for your own safety, whether it's remembering to put on sunscreen or wearing a condom. If you make the decision to trust someone, you are responsible for that decision.

By this logic, people who marry and then are murdered by their spouse just for the insurance money should be 100% responsible too.

You can twist logic to blame the victim in any crime. The reason why you always see the Defense try and do this is because it has an amazing track record of getting lesser sentences, and might even get your perp off. Just look at George Zimmerman. Black males shouldn't be walking around at night wearing hoodies apparently.

The most appropriate punishment would be to require him to pay the medical costs of his victim(s) for life.

No, the most appropriate punishment would be to have anyone who intentionally gives another a disease declared a bio-terrorist and sent to Gitmo. We can't have that though, because for some reason the gay community is too busy slut shaming each other to give a shit.

 

[Hakuba]

By this logic, people who marry and then are murdered by their spouse just for the insurance money should be 100% responsible too.

You can twist logic to blame the victim in any crime. The reason why you always see the Defense try and do this is because it has an amazing track record of getting lesser sentences, and might even get your perp off. Just look at George Zimmerman. Black males shouldn't be walking around at night wearing hoodies apparently.



No, the most appropriate punishment would be to have anyone who intentionally gives another a disease declared a bio-terrorist and sent to Gitmo. We can't have that though, because for some reason the gay community is too busy slut shaming each other to give a shit.

Why is everyone so keen on comparing consensual unprotected sex to rape and murder?? If the guy hadn't been aware of his status the outcome for these men would have been the same.
If you really want to compare it to something then it would be comparable to someone getting lung cancer because someone else convinced them that smoking was completely safe.
I've been around HIV infected men basically since I was born (my mother always had a bunch of gay friends) and I've also seen a few pass away so no one can tell me that I'm not sympathetic to their situation. But these gay men were also the ones that taught me how important it is to protect yourself. To them it was not "slut shaming", back then it was about the difference between life and death.

 

[Willie Boy]

By this logic, people who marry and then are murdered by their spouse just for the insurance money should be 100% responsible too.

You can twist logic to blame the victim in any crime. The reason why you always see the Defense try and do this is because it has an amazing track record of getting lesser sentences, and might even get your perp off. Just look at George Zimmerman. Black males shouldn't be walking around at night wearing hoodies apparently.

Except none of us (save yourself) is twisting anything. We've all stated that the perp IS guilty of his crime. We just realize that anyone going into a situation where there is a more than 75% likelihood of STDs and other dangers and no concern for any of those dangers MUST accept responsibility for his/her own actions. Its like a woman deciding to have unprotected sex with a man then freaking out because she's gotten pregnant. The man is responsible for his side of the thing, but she can not be held blameless because she chose to roll the dice every bit as much as he did. The only difference here is that the "baby" is HIV. Are you really so stupid that you can not understand this?



No, the most appropriate punishment would be to have anyone who intentionally gives another a disease declared a bio-terrorist and sent to Gitmo. We can't have that though, because for some reason the gay community is too busy slut shaming each other to give a shit.[/QUOTE]

 

[star-warrior]

Blaming the victim is NOT going to get stricter sentences passed. That's a fact of life.

Stricter sentences come with stricter judges.

 

[nafhoosier]

ok so I am NOT defending the guy. At all.

HOWEVER...

This story perfectly underscores my long-time position that your health is your own responsibility. Always protect yourself, never take anyone's word that they're HIV-. Ever. Some guys lie... and some guys just don't know. Their last test came back negative and they don't know they since have been infected. Some just assume that they're HIV- because they're not bottoms or they trusted partners who weren't trust worthy.

Whatever the reason... Your health is your own responsibility. His victims would most likely not been infected had they insisted on using condoms regardless of the "No, seriously dude, I'm HIV-" from him.

I completely agree.

I don't feel sorry for the creep who infected the guy at all (he deserves whatever he gets), but I wouldn't call the guy he infected a "victim" unless he was raped or cheated on in a long term relationship where reasonable trust would have been broken. Also, if the guy did everything he could to reasonably protect himself, like wear a condom (DUH!!!), and it broke, or was somehow tampered with by the guy so as to unknowingly infect him, then yeah, I would call the guy a victim.

No, people are responsible for their own health in consensual sexual situations. If the guy willingly didn't choose to wear the condom and decided to trust a stranger (even a guy he just started dating - who immediately ditches condoms when they first start dating??), then unfortunately I think he should be prepared to face the consequences of his actions.

People lie, people suck. So you have to prepare for it.

So I'll just go out and say it - the "victim" in this case was a moron.

 

[LeicsDom]

Yes, you ARE defending the guy & blaming the victim.

If a woman gets raped -- is it her fault because she was dressing in revealing clothes, hanging at bars late at night? Wasn't it her responsibility to "protect" herself by not dressing like a prostitute & not going out late at night??

If a gay man gets gay-bashed by bunch of straight guys, wasn't it his responsibility to learn karate or learn how to shoot a gun so he could "protect" himself from his attackers??

The responsibility of the victim is always to not put yourself in a position where you can be taken advantage of.
In an ideal world none of these things would happen but if you walk down a darkl street late at night alone then you are not safe
If you bareback with a stranger, you are not safe

 

[dpnice]

^

I disagree with many of the analogies people are using to clarify someone as a victim.

I should be able to walk down a dark alley late at night with no fear of being attacked. If I am attacked I am a victim; not to be blamed for putting myself in a dangerous situation, such a situation shouldn't be dangerous.

Barebacking with a stranger is a totally different situation.

It is not a young girl provocatively dressed getting raped; she is a victim; not to be blamed for the manner in which she was dressed.

Consensual sex between two people can't put one in a victim situation if he purposely decided not to use a condom; it is a choice. Obviously if he becomes HIV+ he deserves all the sympathy and support one can offer; but he is not a victim.

The busy road analogy works well; as someone walking into the traffic without looking could not really be termed a victim if he is hit by a car.

 

[Willie Boy]

^

I disagree with many of the analogies people are using to clarify someone as a victim.

I should be able to walk down a dark alley late at night with no fear of being attacked. If I am attacked I am a victim; not to be blamed for putting myself in a dangerous situation, such a situation shouldn't be dangerous.

But it is. And knowing that it is putting yourself in that situation to be attacked just means you victimize yourself. Your attackers are still guilty of having attacked you, but you can not be held blameless for knowingly putting yourself in harm's way. In fact you could end up getting yourself locked up pending a suicide watch and a mental health hearing.

 

[Kulindahr]

By this logic, people who marry and then are murdered by their spouse just for the insurance money should be 100% responsible too.

You can twist logic to blame the victim in any crime. The reason why you always see the Defense try and do this is because it has an amazing track record of getting lesser sentences, and might even get your perp off. Just look at George Zimmerman. Black males shouldn't be walking around at night wearing hoodies apparently.

Really? You think that getting married constitutes entering an obvious risk situation?

No, the most appropriate punishment would be to have anyone who intentionally gives another a disease declared a bio-terrorist and sent to Gitmo. We can't have that though, because for some reason the gay community is too busy slut shaming each other to give a shit.

No one should be sent to Gitmo -- there shouldn't be any detention facilities there except for personnel serving on the base.

 

[Kulindahr]

Except none of us (save yourself) is twisting anything. We've all stated that the perp IS guilty of his crime. We just realize that anyone going into a situation where there is a more than 75% likelihood of STDs and other dangers and no concern for any of those dangers MUST accept responsibility for his/her own actions. Its like a woman deciding to have unprotected sex with a man then freaking out because she's gotten pregnant. The man is responsible for his side of the thing, but she can not be held blameless because she chose to roll the dice every bit as much as he did. The only difference here is that the "baby" is HIV. Are you really so stupid that you can not understand this?

Interesting comparison.

I was thinking in terms of loading a gun and tossing it in a duffel bag with clothes for a trip without checking to make sure the safety is on; then someone picks up your bag and tosses it to you and the gun goes off and shoots you in the leg. While the press would call it an "accidental discharge", there was nothing accidental about it -- just stupidity; you CHOSE to put yourself into an encounter with an object that could discharge and harm you.

 

[Kulindahr]

But it is. And knowing that it is putting yourself in that situation to be attacked just means you victimize yourself. Your attackers are still guilty of having attacked you, but you can not be held blameless for knowingly putting yourself in harm's way. In fact you could end up getting yourself locked up pending a suicide watch and a mental health hearing.

Yep.

The big mistake people make is the notion that if one person is responsible, the other is less responsible. It doesn't work that way: each is fully responsible for his/her own actions.

It's like when I was a lifeguard: when a little girl got injured because she took off running on the pool deck, it was 100% my fault if it was in my zone on my shift, because it's the lifeguard's job to make sure everyone knows and follows the rules. But that doesn't mean her parents shouldn't punish her for disobeying the rules; she was also 100% responsible.

 

[MotelGuy]

Acts of random sexual evil...

 

[luckynumbah7]

Really? You think that getting married constitutes entering an obvious risk situation?

I never get to play devil's advocate but I will point out that when a murder occurs it's usually the spouse who's done it.

 

[Willie Boy]

I never get to play devil's advocate but I will point out that when a murder occurs it's usually the spouse who's done it.

Right, because at least 51% of the incarcerated murderers are locked up fro killing their spouses.

 

[Vitamin]

Acts of random sexual evil...

Not here there not. It's all the victims fault.