Michael Johnson: 30-60 Years For Nondisclosure

[novicebottomdude]

"Michael Johnson, the former college wrestler known as “Tiger Mandingo,” was sentenced to at least 30 years in prison Friday, and perhaps more than 60, after being convicted on five counts ranging from recklessly infecting a partner with HIV to recklessly exposing partners to the virus"

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/steventhrasher/tiger-mandingo-sentenced-to-at-least-30-years-in-e20c#.ripjEL88l

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/steventhrasher/how-college-wrestling-star-tiger-mandingo-became-an-hiv-scap#.pjLQx6AAy

[BiAggieGuy]

Guys like him, doing that shit deliberarly and clearly without remorse, give all gay and bi men a bad rap.

 

He might be hot, but he's still an idiot IMO.

[drscorpio]

I don't understand what you think he did wrong. His story has always been that he DID disclose his status.

All that comes from this is a disincentive for guys to get tested. There is NO defense in Missouri for a Poz guy who knows he is Poz if his partner claims he did not disclose. Even for an undetectable guys using a condom (not what happened in this case, I know).

Can you imagine having to tape every trick saying he understands you are Poz and consents to sex with you anyway?

[pozpig]

I have to admit, I'm a "paper trail" kinda guy. Anytime I arrange a hookup I always make sure status is documented in any message exchanged (email, text, etc), and more importantly acknowledged and SAVED! It may not be fool-proof, but at least something can be shown.

[GermanFucker]

I don't understand what you think he did wrong. His story has always been that he DID disclose his status.

All that comes from this is a disincentive for guys to get tested. There is NO defense in Missouri for a Poz guy who knows he is Poz if his partner claims he did not disclose. Even for an undetectable guys using a condom (not what happened in this case, I know).

Can you imagine having to tape every trick saying he understands you are Poz and consents to sex with you anyway?

 

That's the problem with these kind of cases tried in and by the media: It's always "he said - she said". As it appears you have a number of guys accusing him, who all tell more or less the same story and thusly paint a convincing picture. On the other hand there's the racial stereotype and an atmosphere charged up with media hype. I wasn't in the courtroom so I cannot say anything as to the truthfulness of the victims' statements. I cannot say if a fair verdict was reached or if a bunch of sexually frustrated housewives on the jury were out for blood. That's why I HATE, HATE, HATE discussing such cases online.

 

I personally think that one has to get rid of laws from the 80s that single out poz people, but I do think that in certain cases intentionally passing on a disease should be punishable, be it HIV, syphillis, or even measles (If you infect your child because you're one of those anti-vaccination idiots, there's a 1 in 1000 chance it might die, and if it does you should be held accountable). Any law shouldn't be mainly concerned with the type of disease, but instead with the following factors.

 

- was it intentionally, with "reckless disregard" or by accident?

- was the other person informed beforehand?

- did an actual transmission / infection take place?

- what safety measures were taken to prevent transmission?

- how easily is the disease treatable or even curable?

- what is the change on the quality of life?

 

Should a poz guy be punished for having sex with a condom? No. Sentences could range from none at all, a slap on the wrist to severe punishment. Just like you would get if you paralize another person because you drove drunk or worse, because you just wanted to break someone's spine.

 

So even if I might disagree with Missouri state law, even a better judicial system might find that Johnson did something wrong. I know it's hard to prove whether his partners were informed or not. But IF there is compelling evidence (like: all witnesses seem believable and don't contradict each other and there is computer or video evidence - "you're clean, right?" / "yeah, sure" - that supports their story) that he acted with reckless disregard, he should be held accountable, even in a perfect world.

 

What I hate about these cases is that everybody immediately jumps to an opinion: Those who scapegoat Johnson and those who make him a poster child for discrimination. People talk more about their own prejudices, stereotypes, issues and agendas than the case a hand. Because that would mean actually being informed. And I don't claim I'm informed. I don't have the time to read a billion pages of court transcripts. But at least I try not to be judgmental.

 

As you, drscorpio, said, Johnson isn't the undetectable guy always wearing a condom, who is suffering from overly intrusive, outdated laws.

Edited May 16, 2015 by GermanFucker

[drscorpio]

For the record, I don't think Johnson was a complete innocent. I just think dont think the clear cut evidence exists to paint him as a monster.

I think my point still stands that the result of this case will be fewer people getting tested in Missouri.

[bearbandit]

These posts point up precisely why I am opposed to any form of criminalisation of HIV transmission. Criminalisation is the best possible way of spreading HIV: "I'm not going to get tested because I can't face a lifetime of having to tell people I have HIV" leads to the guy eventually getting HIV, but since he doesn't know he has it, he can't be held "accountable" for transmission, his health worsens, his viral load rises, and viral load is at its highest just after infection, but when it rises in the absence of treatment it rises and THEN you get sick. Maybe. You can live a long time with a high viral load before you end up in hospital where eventually they figure out that you have HIV and the illness that put you in hospital is a result of your immune deficiency...

 

Yes, there are all the stealthing stories on here: if people can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy, then they have a problem that needs to be addressed with psychosocial intervention, not with prosecution.

 

The paper trail idea is a device in the long story I have in the chasing section. The boys who get pozzed (and I use the term boys as in bottoms, obviously) have signed a consent form saying that they want HIV before the central character's dick gets anywhere near their holes.

The "wilful transmission" idea only serves to prolong and widen the gap in our community between the poz guys and the neg guys (I'm a firm believer in PrEP and wish to hell it was available properly in the UK.) and for the purposes of this discussion I'm discounting the guys who are chasing. I count myself extremely lucky to have a FWB whose last test was negative but is completely at home with the idea of my HIV. As he said "in another time and place we would have been good together": as it is there are things that go against a relationship beyond what we already enjoy, but it doesn't stop me thinking the world of him. Such relationships are rare in the UK: it's as though the self-perceived negative guys haven't learned anything over the past thirty years. In the UK the piece of law ("Offenses against the person Act") used to cover wilful HIV transmission dates from the 19th century! Worse, there has already been an attempt to use it for herpes.

 

I said in an online article a couple of years ago that for the past thirty -odd years it has been demanded of gay men that we lead an unnatural sex life. I went on to argue that with TasP, which benefits the poz guy by protecting his health by reducing his viral load to the point where he's not infectious and there isn't enough HIV in his system to cause more damage, coupled with PrEP to prevent a negative guy from ever getting HIV, the condoms of the future are chemical. Criminalising HIV transmission works against this just by stigmatising PwHIV, a stigma which rubs off on guys using truvada as PrEP.

 

Accidents happen: condoms break (as one did about 59 years ago in my mother's vagina), which isn't necessarily anyone's fault, someone may feel overwhelmed by the idea of medication - and let me assure you neg guys, even today, starting meds is a big psychological step. Hell, even guys on PrEP have found it a "moment of truth" to swallow their first truvada. Criminalisation just makes a bad situation worse.

 

If someone is seriously deliberately passing on HIV, they don't need a prison sentence, they need a psychologist or psychiatrist. It's a medical issue, not a criminal one.

 

My apologies if this all reads somewhat disjointed: I've written it as things have come to mind, so it's more a stream of consciousness than a well-argued case as others have written.

[ppwanker]

The thing that I suspect is the numbers.. Anyone read And the band played on?? They said patient 0 fucked about 2000 people over a course of 10 years.. When we did the numbers it was like 3 tricks a week.. Which was nothing for me in my early years.. I doubt that this guys did just 60.. 

[GermanFucker]

My apologies if this all reads somewhat disjointed: I've written it as things have come to mind, so it's more a stream of consciousness than a well-argued case as others have written.

 

No apologies needed. It's an emotional topic, I think we all have some kind of emotional impetus to contribute to this topic.

 

 

Yes, there are all the stealthing stories on here: if people can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy, then they have a problem that needs to be addressed with psychosocial intervention, not with prosecution.

 

Yes, giftgiving / bugchasing and stealthing is 98% fake. But that doesn't mean that there aren't true cases. A good friend of mine got stealthed, exactly like you'd expect from the stories. His T-cells rapidly declined, he got cancer, which he defeated, but the chemo had side effects. Wounds won't heal, he's been in and out of doctor's offices for years.

 

I've even been offered to add my poz cum to a stealther's "dirty" load when he's fucking some innocent young thing. Which is ironic, because I actually still am neg.

 

These posts point up precisely why I am opposed to any form of criminalisation of HIV transmission. Criminalisation is the best possible way of spreading HIV: "I'm not going to get tested because I can't face a lifetime of having to tell people I have HIV" leads to the guy eventually getting HIV, but since he doesn't know he has it, he can't be held "accountable" for transmission, his health worsens, his viral load rises, and viral load is at its highest just after infection, but when it rises in the absence of treatment it rises and THEN you get sick. Maybe. You can live a long time with a high viral load before you end up in hospital where eventually they figure out that you have HIV and the illness that put you in hospital is a result of your immune deficiency...

If someone is seriously deliberately passing on HIV, they don't need a prison sentence, they need a psychologist or psychiatrist. It's a medical issue, not a criminal one.

 

I still disagree. Even though I admit there are a lot of hysterical and archaic laws that need to be purged.

 

Ideally, a legal system should provide fairness for all, meaning there should be no double standards. I don't think there is ever a need to have a law specifically for HIV, but that doesn't mean willful transmission of diseases or infliction of bodily harm (any kind, not just HIV) should be legal. Stigmatization should never be a tool for HIV prevention. And if an undetectable man has sex with a condom without disclosing, that shouldn't even come near a courtroom. But if there was clear intent or reckless disregard, there should be accountability. If your employer gave you cancer because he recklessly disregarded safety precautions when working with asbestos, don't you think he should be held responsible? Even if it is just a very small number, there are SOME HIV-related cases that warrant legal examination. Categorically exempting POZ people would indeed be a double standard.

 

 

If someone is seriously deliberately passing on HIV, they don't need a prison sentence, they need a psychologist or psychiatrist. It's a medical issue, not a criminal one.

 

No sane person would beat up another human being for fun. The fact that there are some that do, means that there's something wrong with them and they need psychological treatment. But it doesn't mean that the deed should automatically go unpunished. The legal standard for impunity isn't the existence of a psychological issue. You also need to consider whether the perpetrator was so delusional that he was unaware that what he did was wrong. A child molester is a sick person indeed. But he usually is aware that he's about to hurt and emotionally scar a child. (Of course, the exact degree of awareness should be assessed by experts and taken into acount when sentencing someone like that.). So are most stealthers. They know it's wrong, but hey, it's fun. It basically boils down to disregarding the other as a person.

 

For the record, I don't think Johnson was a complete innocent. I just think dont think the clear cut evidence exists to paint him as a monster.

 

 

I agree. That's why I hate the media hype around cases like these. If I were to form an uninformed opinion: I think Johnson is above all a horny idiot. But he's hot (I'd do him if he also likes to bottom ). Hotness is usually how idiots get away with being idiots (if it were any other issue).

[bearbandit]

I read And the Band Played on when it first came out here and I was doing HIV-awareness training as a job. When I finished the book I binned it after throwing it at the wall, thinking it was one of the nastiest, most vindictive things I'd ever read. I recently gave it another chance and discovered I haven't changed my mind. Not binning a perfectly good Kindle though. It did a damn goood job of demonising people with HIV, when it had the potential to be the first history of the epidemic.

 

I wrote my previous message here in haste and anger: I do accept many of your arguments, GermanFucker: I guess it's the stigmatisating effects of such a case that get to me, in that a whole community ends up being "punished" for one person's actions. When the topic comes up more generally I tend towards a reductio ad absurdam argument, citing the fact that they've tried to prosecute for transmission of herpes here, what's next? prosecution for having influenza and going out in public? It's a difficult question and I think needs more consideration than seems to be permitted by (in the UK's case) a law that's over 100 years old. I'd say that what we in the UK need is a law that takes account of the changes in mores since the Offences against the person Act (substitute whatever's necessary for where you are) takes into account what's been learned since whichever law that's used was worded, and the law to be updated at set intervals to account for improvements in knowledge. The attitude of both British and American law seems to rely on the knowledge of the eighties, slightly (but only slightly) updated.

[Guest PozGoat]

ALL AMERICAN anti-HIV laws are ANTI-GAY laws meant to oppress gay people for being gay.

 

Occasionally a straight person gets prosecuted.

 

America is a conservative FASCIST shithole of RepubliKKKlans.

[totals]

sad news. very sorry for the guy

[BiAggieGuy]

ALL AMERICAN anti-HIV laws are ANTI-GAY laws meant to oppress gay people for being gay.

 

Occasionally a straight person gets prosecuted.

 

America is a conservative FASCIST shithole of RepubliKKKlans.

 

Oh please, drama queen much?

 

Move somewhere else if you hate this country so much.  No one goes to prison for being gay.

 

Actions have consequences and if you don't like a law, get it changed.  No different than how people worked to change the laws on pot.  The law is there, he broke it according to the court, and has to face the consequences.

Edited May 17, 2015 by BiAggieGuy

[PlayfulPup]

Last year The New York Times published a follow up story of Michael Johnson’s arrest, trial, conviction, and appeal:

[think before following links] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/07/14/us/michael-johnson-hiv-prison.amp.html

It is fascinating to re-read our thoughts from five years ago in the context of more background about this case, improved treatment for the disease, additional medical research, and viable prevention methods.