A man who deliberately infected others with HIV just got a life sentence

[ronnie4u]

WOOF !  am I becoming perverted by enjoying watching videos of Stealth with a condom or watching a tooth brush being used and seeing bloody dicks ? 

[Guest perverthomoslave]

As long as they don't criminalize consensual pozzing it's awesome.
As a bug chaser I think we should have the right to choose if we want to have a disease or not, but don't stealth! That's low! Stealthing is one of those things that should be kept as roleplay

[Guest SecretCumWhore]

On 5/12/2018 at 11:59 AM, hornycumslut91 said:

Perhaps they'll make him being undetectable as a condition of his release.

This would probably only after a medical statement from a psychologist or something, saying he felt remorse, had routinely taken his medication, and is willing to admit responsibility etc...  for a possible sentence reduction. 

[Guest SecretCumWhore]

To be honest, I think a bugchaser who wanted to help said individual cope with their hiv status (maybe the bottom was on PreP but didn’t tell him, or maybe he did and the guy at the time would be sexually attracted to trying to infect the bottom into him) would keep him around as they gradually talk things over until he’s at a stable place. However thats an overreaching assumption a btm chaser would be empathetic enough to slowly work with him on changing his malicious mindset to one of compassion and keep him around to avoid him spreading it to other people. That’s a lot to ask from one person to take that onboard though.  

[loadjunkie]

Does anyone know how to contact him in prison?

[Ocelot2000]

No comments about him going to Prison, I think he should, but not for life! That's daft. HIV is not a death sentence. OK, I did comment, but shouldn't the people he had sex with either have been on PrEP or used a condom if they didn't want to take that risk? I mean, where is the responsibility there? And as for a condom being cut and breaking, you can clearly feel that snap. I have felt it every time back when I didn't want to be BBed and I made the guy pull out immediately. It can't just be on him. Sorry, but that is a cop out!

Edited October 28, 2020 by Ocelot2000

[BootmanLA]

2 hours ago, Ocelot2000 said:

No comments about him going to Prison, I think he should, but not for life! That's daft. HIV is not a death sentence. OK, I did comment, but shouldn't the people he had sex with either have been on PrEP or used a condom if they didn't want to take that risk? I mean, where is the responsibility there? And as for a condom being cut and breaking, you can clearly feel that snap. I have felt it every time back when I didn't want to be BBed and I made the guy pull out immediately. It can't just be on him. Sorry, but that is a cop out!

Well... for starters, this took place in the UK, where (at the time) PrEP was not available. The article makes it clear the incidents in question happened between October 2015 and February 2016, years before PrEP was available there. So no, that wasn't an option for the bottoms.

Secondly, as the article made clear, it wasn't a case of the condom "breaking" as in under pressure; he'd cut the condoms so that they were open from the start.

It's true that even still, HIV is not a death sentence. But it's a life sentence to medications that can wreak havoc with your body. If they receive a life sentence thanks to his actions, why shouldn't he? 

Mind you - this is a case where the guy deliberately set out to infect others, by his own admission. 

What's a cop out is not reading the article for the facts presented and expressing an opinion that doesn't address  the information provided.

[Ocelot2000]

11 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

Well... for starters, this took place in the UK, where (at the time) PrEP was not available. The article makes it clear the incidents in question happened between October 2015 and February 2016, years before PrEP was available there. So no, that wasn't an option for the bottoms.

Secondly, as the article made clear, it wasn't a case of the condom "breaking" as in under pressure; he'd cut the condoms so that they were open from the start.

It's true that even still, HIV is not a death sentence. But it's a life sentence to medications that can wreak havoc with your body. If they receive a life sentence thanks to his actions, why shouldn't he? 

Mind you - this is a case where the guy deliberately set out to infect others, by his own admission. 

What's a cop out is not reading the article for the facts presented and expressing an opinion that doesn't address  the information provided.

I did read, and in that time you could get PrEP. Many places, at least in London, were giving out generic forms of Truvada plus breaking or cutting a condom, you can tell the difference. But to each his own in their thoughts. I never said he should not go to jail. I said it should not be for life.

[wood]

9 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Well... for starters, this took place in the UK, where (at the time) PrEP was not available. The article makes it clear the incidents in question happened between October 2015 and February 2016, years before PrEP was available there. So no, that wasn't an option for the bottoms.

Secondly, as the article made clear, it wasn't a case of the condom "breaking" as in under pressure; he'd cut the condoms so that they were open from the start.

It's true that even still, HIV is not a death sentence. But it's a life sentence to medications that can wreak havoc with your body. If they receive a life sentence thanks to his actions, why shouldn't he? 

Mind you - this is a case where the guy deliberately set out to infect others, by his own admission. 

What's a cop out is not reading the article for the facts presented and expressing an opinion that doesn't address  the information provided.

Exactly. You have to look at this as a case of willful intent to cause physical, mental, and economic harm. 
 

In effect it’s not much different than doing something like slashing tires or brake lines. At minimum there is some economic or mental harm even if it’s not physical. 
 

I will say again I’m not for criminalizing HIV, but his actions fall into another category. 

[BootmanLA]

19 hours ago, Ocelot2000 said:

I did read, and in that time you could get PrEP. Many places, at least in London, were giving out generic forms of Truvada plus breaking or cutting a condom, you can tell the difference. But to each his own in their thoughts. I never said he should not go to jail. I said it should not be for life.

You're simply wrong on the facts here.

The first UK studies of PrEP (and remember, studies involve a very limited number of test subjects) aka the PROUD study, began in late 2012 and the first interim results of that study weren't presented until early 2015. NHS England, which provides health care for English residents, declined to start offering PrEP based on that study, and legal challenges ensued. In December 2016, the courts ruled that NHS England *could* but was not *required* to provide PrEP, and at that time NHS England commissioned a larger study to determine its effectiveness.

In other words, during the period these deliberate infections occurred, PrEP was still in trial/study, and not available to the general public, in the UK.

Things like facts and dates are sometimes inconvenient, but they are what they are.

[Ocelot2000]

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

You're simply wrong on the facts here.

The first UK studies of PrEP (and remember, studies involve a very limited number of test subjects) aka the PROUD study, began in late 2012 and the first interim results of that study weren't presented until early 2015. NHS England, which provides health care for English residents, declined to start offering PrEP based on that study, and legal challenges ensued. In December 2016, the courts ruled that NHS England *could* but was not *required* to provide PrEP, and at that time NHS England commissioned a larger study to determine its effectiveness.

In other words, during the period these deliberate infections occurred, PrEP was still in trial/study, and not available to the general public, in the UK.

Things like facts and dates are sometimes inconvenient, but they are what they are.

Yes but I live 6 months of the year in London and 6 months in LA. Whatever the courts decided was different to what you could get and/or was being offered by doctors in and for the gay community, and I stress, In London. You could get it for 50 pounds for the month. I did not take it because living in the US I was already on it at the time.

[Guest takingdeepanal]

On 11/7/2019 at 2:51 PM, SecretCumWhore said:

This would probably only after a medical statement from a psychologist or something, saying he felt remorse, had routinely taken his medication, and is willing to admit responsibility etc...  for a possible sentence reduction. 

Plus hopefully a vasectomy with no anaesthetic ...

[BootmanLA]

16 hours ago, Ocelot2000 said:

Yes but I live 6 months of the year in London and 6 months in LA. Whatever the courts decided was different to what you could get and/or was being offered by doctors in and for the gay community, and I stress, In London. You could get it for 50 pounds for the month. I did not take it because living in the US I was already on it at the time.

That's $70+ a month, not an insignificant sum for many people (especially those whose wages are lower than, say, comparable jobs in the US because the NHS provides health care). And that's if you know a doctor who will prescribe something not yet approved for use. 

I'm not saying it's impossible to have gotten it. I'm saying that cavalierly dismissing it as "their fault for not taking responsibility for getting PrEP" is ridiculous. 

[Ocelot2000]

50 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

That's $70+ a month, not an insignificant sum for many people (especially those whose wages are lower than, say, comparable jobs in the US because the NHS provides health care). And that's if you know a doctor who will prescribe something not yet approved for use. 

I'm not saying it's impossible to have gotten it. I'm saying that cavalierly dismissing it as "their fault for not taking responsibility for getting PrEP" is ridiculous. 

Again, I never said it is solely their fault, or his, but there has to be accountability on both sides. I also said he should go to jail, just not a life sentence, and I said PrEP can be gotten. 50 pounds a month to ensure you go and have 1 guy a month or 50 guys a night is worth it in anyone's shoes. I pay 920 dollars a month on health insurance in LA.... And please, the amount gay guys spend in a weekend on drinks?!?! 50 pounds or 70 dollars is  nothing for a month's worth of protection considering the non generic is way over 1000..... Either way I stand by what I said as you stand by what you are saying. We will agree to disagree. 

[BootmanLA]

4 hours ago, Ocelot2000 said:

Again, I never said it is solely their fault, or his, but there has to be accountability on both sides. I also said he should go to jail, just not a life sentence, and I said PrEP can be gotten. 50 pounds a month to ensure you go and have 1 guy a month or 50 guys a night is worth it in anyone's shoes. I pay 920 dollars a month on health insurance in LA.... And please, the amount gay guys spend in a weekend on drinks?!?! 50 pounds or 70 dollars is  nothing for a month's worth of protection considering the non generic is way over 1000..... Either way I stand by what I said as you stand by what you are saying. We will agree to disagree. 

Not everyone goes out on weekends drinking. Not everyone who does spends a fortune on drinks when they do. You are speaking from a narrow window of experience.

You mentioned that you used to spend half a year in the US and half in the UK at the time. That alone puts you in an economic stratum well above an awful lot of people for whom a transatlantic trip is more of a lifetime-savings event and not something undertaken seasonally. I have a couple of younger gay friends who have entry-level jobs and for them, two nights out a month at the bars and a limit of $25 each time for their drinks is doable but pushing it. Your blithe assumption that "oh well, they can afford $70 a month" may apply to you and your income level but not to everyone else's. And as I said, YOU knew where to find a doctor that would provide a non-approved drug for you. Not everyone does.

What I find mind-boggling is the assumption in everything you write on this topic that your personal experience is the do-all, be-all, end-all of what the rest of the world encounters and therefore anyone who points out a flaw in your arguments insofar as they apply to others is just wrong. The difference between me standing by what I'm saying, and you standing by what you're saying, is that I take into account that some people's experiences may be different from mine or yours. You do not.