22yo Missouri student exposed 30+ partners to HIV and filmed it

[GermanFucker]

Wow, none of the potential "victims" have any responsibility for their own actions? Unless he raped them on video, all he really should be prosecuted for is filming someone without their knowledge. And i'm not even sure that is a crime if you don't show it. It said they were "found". Not released. Sure, he is an ass hole for lying about it, if he even knew. They didn't say he actually knew himself. I hate these kinds of stories. Criminalizing HIV only makes people not want to get tested. Afterall, spreading it unknowingly is not a crime. Once you know, it all changes. This is wrong.

Also, there are no mentions of whether or not he was on meds because most people don't know to ask that or that it even matters. I didn't know these things until I was positive and it was my reality. Some straight reporter who is looking for a sensational story probably doesn't know that being on meds makes you unable to infect, or what undetectable means.

But, hey, he is HOT as fuck. I'll bet a lot of those 30 have some amazingly hot memories of that night. If they are like me, they will probably say it was worth it. Mine came from a very similar situation and from a guy who was hot, black and didn't know he had just gotten it. I can't possibly blame him. I went for the raw cock, took his load, and am living with it. And I'd do it all over again. In fact, I have done it again. So sue me.

First of all: I agree that the article is sensationalist CRAP. It does a disservice not only to poz people, prevention efforts but also to young black athletes. It eschews all the important questions (like did he know, was he on meds etc.) which need to be answered to assess the situation.

Even though most poz guys live complete, full lives, intentionally giving someone HIV does cause some harm and alters one life. If I knew that the SM game I was playing with you carried a 30 percent chance of me cutting off your left foot, wouldn't you want know? Wouldn't it be your right to know that? (I mean you would be fine without a foot. Countless army vets want to return to duty wearing a prothesis. But then again the man of your dream or just the guy you desire for a quick fuck might not be into that. He'd be a total moron douche, but still your life would be altered because of it, just like with HIV). If there's (and that's a big if - I don't know if it applies in this specific case) a difference in knowledge, the one who knows more carries an extra responsibility - either to level the playing field informationwise (i.e. by telling / divulging, because if the other one knows, that means it's COMPLETELY up to him) or to take precautions accordingly (in my personal opinion: e.g. by going on meds).

The fact that the other also party also has to take responsibility for his actions, can have a mitigating effect, but never fully negates that extra responsibility.

The fact that everything changes once you know is often clearly unfair. But in a legal - and broader social - sense it is often necessary. Because otherwise it opens the door to all kinds of unsavory arguments. Employers wouldn't want to take responsibility for safety at the workplace. After all their employees choose to work for them. If I sell a house that has toxic mold or housed a meth lab, I have to tell. If I sell a car that might blow up after a mile, I have to tell lest I be liable. If I'm drunk but look sober enough for you to ride along in my car, I'm on the hook.... And so on and so forth. If you look at the big picture, it is often necessary, that if I know that something about the way I interact with you might harm you, that I'm obliged to divulge. And there shouldn't be a gay exception. Saying that amongst gay guys you should expect your partner to be poz whereas heterosexuals make babies blissfully assuming the other one's neg, makes gays a seperate class legally. And segregation was never a good idea (doesn't matter if equal or unequal).

IMHO one should go by what can reasonably expected taking into account all the circumstances. If one takes a dozen loads at an adult movie theater he cannot reasonably expect all those to be neg. If one meets a guy over Facebook and hooks up in his dormroom with him saying he tested neg, then yes, one can reasonably expect that he got tested recently and as far as the test can tell was neg at the time. (Of course there's always a risk he's poz and just doesn't know yet. Bad luck, which noone should be blamed for.) If the other person chooses to lie, thus denying one the right to make an informed decision, the bulk of responsibility shifts to that person, and in my humble opinion, that is not wrong. Just generally speaking, I really don't want to pass any kind of judgement based on shoddy journalism.

As usual, 'slut, we're agreeing with each other from different ends of the spectrum. The only thing I'd take issue with is the thing that Tiger pointed out (that I'd missed in my original post): his partners agreed to raw sex. They made their choices. Of course, if we're talking rape it's a whole different ballgame...

A personal plea: One thing we should all keep in mind: We're all seasoned sluts here. We know how the game is played. But someone from a repressive family exploring his gay side for the first time in college (or even later) might not. Hell, if I want to get a bi-curious "straight" guy into bed, I can be totally convincing telling him that for me, too, "this is the first time I'm doing something like that" (but I usually don't, I prefer the bad-boy approach *LOL).

Before one passes judgement - be it a condemnation or acquittal - one should always try to see it from a different perspective, not only the one one instinctively indentifies with. And just because we already know better whe shouldn't look down upon a newcomer's naiveté.

Edited January 23, 2014 by GermanFucker

[Runningforraw]

does anyone know if this guy had a profile on here or other bareback sites?

[wood]

Note the reporter's switch from "exposing to HIV" to "giving HIV" within a couple of sentences. Talk about brainwashing!

No, just bad journalism. The facts of the case are the facts. With this case there was a five month investigation before the story broke, the authorities seem to have done their due diligence on the case, and from every article I have read, it is VERY apparent Mr. Johnson knew he was HIV+ and did nothing to warn partners, or use any type of barrier protection in the cases mentioned.

Here's a better article with more explanation:

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2013/12/03/ex-indy-wrestler-accused-of-exposing-men-to-hiv/3863587/

There is also this bit from the article which makes it clear what Mr Johnson is facing.

Last week, the St. Charles County prosecutor’s office filed additional charges against Johnson after four more men came forward within two weeks of Johnson’s arrest. He is now facing five felonies: one count of recklessly infecting another with HIV, a Class A felony, and four counts of recklessly exposing someone to the risk of infection, a Class B felony.

In Missouri, a Class A felony is punishable by 10 years to lifetime imprisonment, and a Class B felony by five to 15 years in prison.

While many will disagree with me, this sort of case is why I still agree with many of the laws regarding HIV transmission. Should the other people have been more careful of course, but that doesn't give Mr Johnson the right to knowingly expose someone else to HIV. There is nothing to indicate that these encounters were a no questions asked bathhouse type situation. In those cases, it is much harder to make a case for prosecution. But when people ask questions, and get lies that cause an infection, that is an issue. HIV is obviously very manageable these days, but it can cause a huge financial burden, especially in people in the US in higher income brackets.

Where I really disagree is in sentencing. I bet even with a good lawyer he is looking at ten years in prison, and IMO, that is useless. However US sentencing guidelines are often really screwy.

[wood]

First of all: I agree that the article is sensationalist CRAP. It does a disservice not only to poz people, prevention efforts but also to young black athletes. It eschews all the important questions (like did he know, was he on meds etc.) which need to be answered to assess the situation.

The fact that the other also party also has to take responsibility for his actions, can have a mitigating effect, but never fully negates that extra responsibility.

The fact that everything changes once you know is often clearly unfair. But in a legal - and broader social - sense it is often necessary.

IMHO one should go by what can reasonably expected taking into account all the circumstances. If one takes a dozen loads at an adult movie theater he cannot reasonably expect all those to be neg. If one meets a guy over Facebook and hooks up in his dormroom with him saying he tested neg, then yes, one can reasonably expect that he got tested recently and as far as the test can tell was neg at the time. (Of course there's always a risk he's poz and just doesn't know yet. Bad luck, which noone should be blamed for.) If the other person chooses to lie, thus denying one the right to make an informed decision, the bulk of responsibility shifts to that person, and in my humble opinion, that is not wrong. Just generally speaking, I really don't want to pass any kind of judgement based on shoddy journalism.

Before one passes judgement - be it a condemnation or acquittal - one should always try to see it from a different perspective, not only the one one instinctively indentifies with. And just because we already know better when shouldn't look down upon a newcomer's naiveté.

Agree with almost everything you said. However there is a few things. I am surely not passing complete judgement at this point, but shoddy journalism not withstanding, it is fairly clear that the guy knew, and I am sure that turned up in the 5 month investigation. I doubt this would even be a story if he was sobbing, weeping, just diagnosed and didnt know himself. That would be sad, not a news story.

For me, I identify with both sides, Im dating a poz guy, I have slept with poz men who didnt tell me, but I'm negative. Some have their reasons for not disclosing but none are justified, at least in my case.

Disclosure is the key word in this case, and from what we know right now, that exactly what didn't happen.

IMO, When it comes to blame its about 75/25 percent blame perpetrator to victim. For the victims, they failed to take the step of complete verification, and or using more protection methods. Not that either is 100% but in this game nothing really is. However that doesn't negate the fact that the onus is on the HIV+ person to provide disclosure, and it appears Mr Johnson decided not to do that.

On a tangent, this is also a good example of why I hope PrEP use becomes really widespread. Condom use among gay men is at roughly 50% and it has been about the same all the way from the 70's to today. If we are serious about stopping HIV we cant just rely on condoms, or changing behaviors because it hasn't worked. There should always be disclosure, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't protect yourself in anyway you can.

[bearbandit]

No, just bad journalism.

I bow to your greater knowledge: this is the sort of case we never get to hear about here. So here, and the occasional link are my sources for comment.

BTW, when I referred to you as "'slut" in an earlier post that was simply an affectionate abbreviation of your screen-name in the same way as I get referred to as "bear" or "bandit"...

[houbtmbtch]

amen, brother.

[whatineed]

Hell yeah! Would love to watch his vids

[joethomas]

I've said this over and over: If you bottom and don't ask for a condom, it doesn't matter if the top lies or tells you the truth. You should prepare for anything and prepare for the consequences. It's like P.T. Barnum used to say: "There's a sucker born every minute."

[joethomas]

(And for what it's worth: Yeah, I probably would've let him do anything he asked. So I'm as guilty as anybody.)

[RWHID]

I love how the investigators automatically assume the "victims" were lied too. Did they ask if he was poz on the videos? What if it was disclosed before sex? Just because it can't be proven doesn't mean it didn't happen. I have been there. My boyfriend was on the news a year before this one. I didn't take blame until it was too late, and now I've come to realize my part in my situation. The victims all need to take responsibility for their part. They gave their asses up without a condom, they ain't all that innocent, even if the law says they are. The laws need updated.

Though, I've never asked anyone if their were poz before fucking me, and never will.

[wood]

I love how the investigators automatically assume the "victims" were lied too. Did they ask if he was poz on the videos? What if it was disclosed before sex? Just because it can't be proven doesn't mean it didn't happen. I have been there. My boyfriend was on the news a year before this one. I didn't take blame until it was too late, and now I've come to realize my part in my situation. The victims all need to take responsibility for their part. They gave their asses up without a condom, they ain't all that innocent, even if the law says they are. The laws need updated.

Though, I've never asked anyone if their were poz before fucking me, and never will.

IT was over 30 people telling roughly the same story. If it was 4 or 5 friends I could see your point, but are too many confidences to say the guy didn't do what has be purported.

ANd you are right if the victims never asked, or even believed him when he said it was neg its partially their fault too. But its kind of the a 75/25 situation. Yes they can take 25% of the blame, but that doesn't excuse mr "mandingos" behavior.

[GermanFucker]

I've said this over and over: If you bottom and don't ask for a condom, it doesn't matter if the top lies or tells you the truth. You should prepare for anything and prepare for the consequences. It's like P.T. Barnum used to say: "There's a sucker born every minute."

The problem is that this line of argument is often used as an excuse for not disclosing. If I tie your ballsack tightly with a rope as part of bondage play, there is a slight risk that I might cut off the blood flow for too long. That's bad luck for you. But if I'm actively trying to neuter you that way, you do have the right to know. Knowledge and intention do make a difference.

[Belfast-Bottom]

That guy could bare fuck my neg ass all night long!

[SpfldPowerBottom]

God, I really want to see all the vids. That black stud had an amazing dick and I'd love taking his poz load all night long!!!

[Guest JizzDumpWI]

If PrEP was more generally known and available on campuses; it would not matter what the mandigos of the campus do. If reporters knew the relevance of "undetectable" they could report their sensational stories and educate. Whether we care to admit it or not, a ripped good looking guy will pretty much get what he wants. And 75/25 or some other proportion won't matter a whit. We need to get the message to people on how to make less risky choices while engaging in natural sex rather than lock up a guy for fucking. Now please don't read into this that i think mandigo is blameless, he isn't. But we don't lock up people with polio to protect the masses. We have ways to prevent (vaccines). Similarly we can prevent HIV transmission nowadays. But we are still focused on punish rather than teach.