Man stabs lover to death after she didn't tell him she had HIV before they had sex

reply to post by superman2012


Because -- in math, we always look to reduce big numbers where possible to their lowest form.

.02% is 2 in 1000. Making the number bigger isn't going to change the percentages.

Almost poetic in a greek tragedy kind of way don't you think? Perhaps she should have gotten to know him better before she gave up the booty? Perhaps he should have gotten to know her?

If this news report is right, they just started dating...heh..seems like maybe thats how she got HIV in the first place....givin up the booty to anyone who wants it.

She's guilty of being loose in the goose and not being responsible enough to be honest before they had sex.

He's guilty of overreacting........

Then again i could see why she didn't tell him. kinda hard to get yer booty waxed when no one wants to touch you because you have cooties.

Ultimately the kids suffer the most.

reply to post by 0zzymand0s


I actually can't believe he said that. Had he said why not 1 in 500 I'd be on board. Although those states are wrong, they are actually much lower. I never see any sources below 1:1000, some studies show 1:8000.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


and yet there is 22,000,000 men worldwide who are HIV +. So are you suggesting that all the positive men in the world contracted HIV from homosexual sex only?

Fact is, a positive female on antiretroviral drugs with a low viral load, decreases the males chance of getting HIV, but there is still that chance. You are basically playing Russian Roulette any way you cut it.

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

and yet there is 22,000,000 men worldwide who are HIV +. So are you suggesting that all the positive men in the world contracted HIV from homosexual sex only?

Fact is, a positive female on antiretroviral drugs with a low viral load, decreases the males chance of getting HIV, but there is still that chance. You are basically playing Russian Roulette any way you cut it.

Do I need to do all the research for everyone here? I will give you the facts, you can research them or not, whatever you want. Heterosexuals who do not use drugs account for 27% of new HIV infections. Women account for I believe 24% of new infections. If you are a man and you have HIV you got it from sex with another male, drug use, or extremely rarely from one of the other avenues of infection. The amount of men who got HIV from a woman via intercourse is near zero.

ETA: Sigh why am I so nice. Link.

Subpopulations representing 2% or less of the overall US epidemic are not reflected in this chart.

White heterosexual men are not on the chart. Black heterosexual men account for about 5% of new infections.

CDC estimates that MSM account for just 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in 2009.
HIV infections among women are primarily attributed to heterosexual contact or injection drug use. Women accounted for 23% of estimated new HIV infections in 2009
Injection drug users represented 9% of new HIV infections in 2009
Heterosexuals accounted for 27% of estimated new HIV infections in 2009

As you can see, heterosexual men who do not use drugs are an extremely small population. Of them, sex does not have to be the method of exposure. White heterosexual men who contract HIV from intercourse are almost non-existant.
www.cdc.gov...

edit on 11-9-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

reply to post by OccamsRazor04
Wow...

You've lost all credibility with me. At least in this thread, and probably beyond. That is one of the most blatant examples of the misrepresentation of data I've seen.

Now normally, this isn't a reason to really care, but BUNK information on this topic can lead people who don't do their own research to get the wrong impression of TRUE RISK. That can get people KILLED.

That should cause people some serious shame in trying to minimize the risks of unprotected sex with infected partners. Now, from YOUR OWN SOURCE, I take these paragraphs. I'd like to think you just MISSED the obvious here.....and jumped at numbers. However. you're seemingly going after a few people who disagree and all the while, sticking to statistics that are accurate, but NOT REPRESENTATIVE. Those are PER contact, ACROSS a SOCIETY averages. Even unprotected homosexual sex is listed UNDER 1% (0.82% with KNOWN infected gay partner)

Again, this is from your own source.

Vaginal intercourse without condoms is a high-risk route of sexual HIV transmission for both the man and the woman, although women have the greatest risk of infection.

Sexually transmitted infections in either partner can greatly increase the degree of risk. Other co-factors have also been identified.

While women are at greater risk of infection from an HIV-positive male partner, unprotected vaginal intercourse is also high risk for men, because damaged penile tissue and the mucous membranes in the urethra and on the head of the penis – particularly underneath the foreskin – form a point of infection.

While research into vaginal microbicides and other protective strategies are ongoing, condoms are still the only proven means of reducing the risk of HIV transmission during vaginal intercourse. Many other factors affect the level of risk associated with vaginal intercourse, including the viral load of the infected partner, sexually transmitted infections in either partner, vaginal health, douching, circumcision and female genital mutilation. These factors are discussed at length in the chapter Co-factors that affect the risk of transmission.

Source

Now, I may just be a simple guy from Missouri these days, but that sounds exceptionally dangerous and described in biological detail precisely HOW and WHY it's exceptionally dangerous for male AND female. Not alike....it's clear females are more likely to contract by sheer physiology. But..only by a bit.

"If you don't have an open wound...it has no way in" some may say (and.ahem..HAVE). Well, I'm not sure what gender someone is who is saying that, as we all generally know the basic biology of the other sex, let alone our own..and to keep this whole thing as G rated in a touchy subject as possible, there is a BIG GAPING INFECTION PATH at the end of the male genetalia. As this rather clear report...from your source....so graphically describes in detail.

but then, there is your study...which is on the next page in sequence to the one I took those quotes from. With a couple further minutes looking. I found an abstract directly out of the study some are trying to quote here with very badly misplaced context. Dangerously so.

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies of the risk of HIV-1 transmission per heterosexual contact. 43 publications comprising 25 different study populations were identified. Pooled female-to-male (0.04% per act [95% CI 0.01-0.14]) and male-to-female (0.08% per act [95% CI 0.06-0.11]) transmission estimates in high-income countries indicated a low risk of infection in the absence of antiretrovirals. Low-income country female-to-male (0.38% per act [95% CI 0.13-1.10]) and male-to-female (0.30% per act [95% CI 0.14-0.63]) estimates in the absence of commercial sex exposure (CSE) were higher. In meta-regression analysis, the infectivity across estimates in the absence of CSE was significantly associated with sex, setting, the interaction between setting and sex, and antenatal HIV prevalence.

Source

Now that is the first part of the abstract. There is another half to it and I'd suggest everyone check that out. It's real clear they are using sampling methods to generate the statistics for per incident exposure numbers across society as a whole as looked at by sub group. That is a WORLD APART from say this specific individual man has less than 1% chance of infection by having sex with a female infected and carrying a viral load.

Bad information in this area CAN get people KILLED. I'd hope everyone check themselves if any questions exist as to what is dangerous for the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Originally posted by litterbaux
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Why are you taking the side of a murderer?

She's a murderer. She got a little taste of her own medicine.

I see this as karma.

Who did she murder?

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by litterbaux
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Why are you taking the side of a murderer?

She's a murderer. She got a little taste of her own medicine.

I see this as karma.

Who did she murder?

Ok let me rephrase. Why are you taking the side of an attempted murderer?

Originally posted by litterbaux
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by superman2012

 

Sleeping with someone if you knowingly have aids is not murder. It is risky, stupid and probably unforgivable. It is an ethical matter rather than a legal one because contrary to popular belief sleeping with someone who has aids once does not mean you will catch it.

You are wrong.

Criminal Transmission of HIV

That is a "wiki article" so far from fact and it says "some" places consider it a criminally prosecutable act. Of course it is. If you can prove you didn't already have it. If there is someone to prosecute and tell the other side of the story. She may have convinced a jury (remember those?) it was one of those things she meant to say, didn't know for certain, was waiting for the tests, you don't know anything about the circumstances. Now that she's dead you don't have anyone to say he's lying - she DID tell him. Maybe he killed her for something else. You can't just kill people.

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by newcovenant
Come on fella - take some responsibility for your own irresponsible actions.

I believe from my previous reading on the subject that she was legally obliged to tell him? i.e you can claim legal damages if someone does this to you. We had a situation where I live of a person delibrately infecting people and that person was arrested, though I didn't follow the case.

People do dumb things and get lustful. Is it fair this person should get HIV for a mistake? I don't agree with the person's reaction but I think a HIV infected person has a duty of care.

Edit: Yep, read post above.

edit on 10-9-2012 by Pinke because: Edit

Definitely and absolutely, however in this day and age you have some responsibility to look out for your own health and ask questions. Wonder what diseases it would have been OK for her to give him? None but he still is responsible for his own precautions. He takes none. That's risky behavior right there.

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by superman2012

 

Sleeping with someone if you knowingly have aids is not murder. It is risky, stupid and probably unforgivable. It is an ethical matter rather than a legal one because contrary to popular belief sleeping with someone who has aids once does not mean you will catch it.

then why are people arrested for such and charged for attempted murder? You will catch it though unless you're in the lucky minority.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by ollncasino

 

It is not a given someone will transfer the aids virus to another person so this guy should have waited to see if he contracted the virus before killing the woman. He also should have asked her if she had any diseases before sleeping with her. Come on fella - take some responsibility for your own irresponsible actions.

Did you REALLY just say he should have waited to make sure he contracted the disease before he killed her???

How about... He should not have killed her.

He should have left her ass,gotten the law involved and let THEM handle it.

hollanishottopics.wordpress.com...


Now,I am not saying she did it on purpose, for sure...But she knew she had it..... she knew she was very potentially passing it on to him..Which is why she told him later....

Id say pressing charges would be the....sane route to go....

Yeah, I really said that.

You think I'm advocating the killing? Way to read wrong.
Go after those "advocating the killing"...That's what I'm doing.
It's not your fault. It's me. I am being so unclear. Cheers.

Originally posted by litterbaux

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by litterbaux
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Why are you taking the side of a murderer?

She's a murderer. She got a little taste of her own medicine.

I see this as karma.

Who did she murder?

Ok let me rephrase. Why are you taking the side of an attempted murderer?

How do you know she didn't tell him? She's dead now.


If this guy doesn't die of aids.
Justice was not done.
He had no trial for her.
He found her guilty of an omission that might threaten his life
and immediately not only sentenced her to death - he carried it out.

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by litterbaux

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by litterbaux
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Why are you taking the side of a murderer?

She's a murderer. She got a little taste of her own medicine.

I see this as karma.

Who did she murder?

Ok let me rephrase. Why are you taking the side of an attempted murderer?

How do you know she didn't tell him? She's dead now.


If this guy doesn't die of aids.
Justice was not done.
He had no trial for her.
He found her guilty of an omission that might threaten his life
and immediately not only sentenced her to death - he carried it out.

How do you know she didn't tell him? She's dead now.

Your reading comprehension needs a little work. This whole event wouldn't have occurred if she didn't tell him. She knew, she told him after the fact.

Did he act appropriately? Probably not but when somebody potentially takes your life away from you, you react.

I don't see why you're arguing with me about this. You're acting like this woman was a devout christian that was slain on her way to church on Sunday morning.

Give me a break.

Originally posted by namehere

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by superman2012

 

Sleeping with someone if you knowingly have aids is not murder. It is risky, stupid and probably unforgivable. It is an ethical matter rather than a legal one because contrary to popular belief sleeping with someone who has aids once does not mean you will catch it.

then why are people arrested for such and charged for attempted murder? You will catch it though unless you're in the lucky minority.

Because some people know what they are doing and are out there trying to kill people.

Others are afraid to tell people they have a disease and are not fully facing the implications - for a multitude of reasons I can easily imagine...You don't HAVE to tell someone you're HIV positive until sex is a possibility and sometimes that happens faster than you can get the words out. Extenuating circumstances are extenuating circumstances. They deserve to be heard.

I'm just saying he shouldn't have killed her.
He could have pressed charges.
I can't believe there's a lot of people arguing and defending this guy for killing a mother.
If only for the sake of her children, he should have thought past what MIGHT happen to him.

Originally posted by EndlessFire
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Thirty-six states and territories have laws that criminalize HIV exposure and/or nondisclosure of HIV status for sexual contact, needle-sharing, and/or contact with “body fluids” such as saliva. Even in states that do not have specific laws on HIV exposure or disclosure requirements, people living with HIV have been prosecuted under general criminal laws, such as assault or attempted murder. Although these laws criminalize conduct that is either consensual (both people agreed to it) or carried no significant risk of HIV transmission, these laws can be used to prosecute people just for being HIV positive.

.

According to hivlawandpolicy.com it is illegal and you can be arrested.

Fabulous! Then that is what should have happened.
It can't cause she's dead now and can't even call the SOB a liar if he is.

reply to post by MrWendal

What strikes me most about the above quote his how often I have seen, when the tables are turned and it is a man infecting a women with some type of STD, people who usually blame the men in that type of situation also.

I have never seen a woman ADMIT to a venereal disease much less blame a particular man. I have however heard men commonly warn other men about women who may have infected them, as well they should.

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
reply to post by newcovenant

 

I agree, to some extent but at the same time if you have a virus like that, one that has no cure, and is known to be deadly, then you should be considerate enough to tell someone that before you sleep with them anyway. It's called being considerate, something this woman obviously knew nothing about. That is particularly true if you care about the person at all and this woman obviously just didn't care about the man she was with that much. You don't knowingly do something like that to someone you care about unless you're a selfish bitch.

edit on 10-9-2012 by GrimReaper86 because: (no reason given)

Of course. You think I don't know that? I am saying she should not be dead now and this man also committed an ugly crime. As ugly and arguably WORSE than hers against him.

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by LaughingatHumanity
Hopefully her kids don't end up being such scumbags. "She took my life so I took hers" im typically not a fan of vengeance but she had it coming.

No she didn't "have it coming. " What an insane statement. It is possible and easy to see why someone loosely hinged and impulsive might be driven to kill her. That I will agree with but to say she had it coming is crazy talk and he is as much a scum bag or more. She did not kill him. He killed her. He probably will catch nothing and be fine and even if he isn't - it is not justification for murder.

edit on 10-9-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)

"he will probably catch nothing and will be fine" ?? That's the basis for your opinon?

wow.

You realise that there is no cure for AIDS right? Once you are infected with HIV, YOU WILL DIE FROM IT.

There is a reason 34 states and 2 territories have laws in place covering disclosure of this virus to a partner.

In Arkansas for example, it's a FELONY to not disclose to a partner that you are HIV positive.

www.unaids.org...

Also see Criminal Transmission of HIV

In many countries, the intentional or reckless infection of a person with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is considered to be a crime. This is often conflated, in laws and in discussion, with criminal exposure to HIV, which does not require the transmission of the virus and often, as in the cases of spitting and biting, does not even include a realistic means of transmission.[1][2] People who do so can be charged with criminal transmission of HIV, murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, or assault. Some states have enacted laws expressly to criminalize HIV transmission (or HIV exposure), as in the United States, while others charge under the existing laws, as in the United Kingdom.

Justification for murder?

If he ends up positive, and she never disclosed to him, I say yes. She killed him too.

No, please forgive me, you're right.
He should have killed her - he had every right and deserves some kind of a medal for saving us the court costs. How silly of me to try and criminalize murder. I mean actual murder, not perhaps murder.

If "perhaps murder" is punishable by death - what are you doling out for "actual murder?"
See the problem? You have to give yourself room to go up. You can't kill somebody twice.

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by superman2012

 

Sleeping with someone if you knowingly have aids is not murder. It is risky, stupid and probably unforgivable. It is an ethical matter rather than a legal one because contrary to popular belief sleeping with someone who has aids once does not mean you will catch it.

Ok, I can see where you are coming from. There is a chance, however slim it is, that they won't catch it, I can also shoot a gun at you from the hip and there will be a chance I won't kill you. It is a legal matter as well as an ethical matter, link for your reading pleasure.

You're saying he should get off without penalty for killing a mother of three because he was afraid he might have caught something during unprotected sex? OK I get it. That's your position. Interesting....Next.