and now is facing two charges of sexual assult. trevis smith, a football player in the canadian football league is accused of endangering the life of his partner while knowingly having HIV.

i think the precedent is clear... you do not necessarily have to disclose your HIV status under the law but you must take precautions to protect the health of your partner.

i had thought this was a story about a man having casual sex with women who were drawn to him by his local celebrity. after the article i have just read i believe his actions are much more dangerous.



he told numerous women that he was having monogamous relationships with them and they believed they were in a loving relationship. the whole thing is a circus... women finding phone numbers and the women on the other end of the phone revealing they were long time girlfriends or wives... while spending christmas with one woman's family another woman was about to give birth to his first child. and so on and so on.

after the initial complaints were made to police they informed his football team that he may be spreading the virus. yet to protect his privacy the team could do nothing. where do you draw the line between a person's right to privacy and public safety?

for this trial they will "have to prove Smith knew he had HIV, that he had sex with the complainants, that he didn’t disclose his status, and that he didn’t use a condom."

the full story here

two fold blame...


he should use a condom

and they shouldn't be stupid enough to trust he's telling the truth.

cborgman said:

I feel the urge to give you a

sounds more like reckless endangerment if not attempted murder

UCantHavaDaMango said:

thanks

if he refused to wear a condom knwoing that he is poz, they should get him.

normally, i am kind of against making a crime out of infecting someone as i mentioned last time this was discussed. but if he knew and still refused a condom... maybe.

cborgman said:

do you mean knowingly infecting?

SlamGlam said:

infecting period. last time it was brought up, some people were saying that the guy who infected me by cheating should be prosecuted. i disagree. knwoingly is different, but it's also extremely hard to prosecute that too

cborgman said:

so some guy goes around infecting people that is not a problem with you? even if he tells them... suicide is illegal and i KNOW HIV is not the sure killer it once was thought to be but i would think it would be a major crime to knowingly expose someone to something that could kill them.

SlamGlam said:

no, it's absolutely a problem for me. what kind of a question is that to ask a hiv positive person??

go back and read what i wrote.

cborgman said:

i think you misunderstood me. i meant if the person KNOWS they have HIV and then still has unprotected sex. your case sounds like he may not have known he had it when he gave it to you. so that is not what i was talking about.

i am asking if a person KNOWS they have it and STILL has unprotected sex with out telling their partner should that be a crime?

SlamGlam said:

probably. the biggest problem is how do you prove it?

and not to be bossy, but you really need to work on how you phrase things some. asking a hiv positive person "so some guy goes around infecting people that is not a problem with you?" with that tone of phrase is a very bad idea.
[Edited 1/31/07 13:30pm]

i knew i should have started this in GD

if you read the link to the story you will see that there is evidence that he knew he was positive from late 2003.

one of his relationships got tested for sti's after discovering he had a wife and when she found out she was positive she told smith. no charges are laid there because he did not know until that point that there was a possibility.

the defense is trying to say that people will stop getting tested so that they can never prove infection was known. i think that is nonsense.


this guy lived simultaneous fantasy relationships so his denial over his status probably isn't surprising in comparasion.


to ehuffnsd and borgman

emm said:

there are a LOT of people who dont get tested. when hiv is brought up in discussions, it never fails to amaze me how many people sy "i'd be too scared to get tested, because i would rather not know."

denile isn't just a river in egypt


perhaps we should get into the habit as a society of always using a condom... every time... no matter what your situation.

that way the man who's married and is bi-curious doesn't ruin a life. that way the woman who is looking for attention from someone other than her husband doesn't ruin a life. that way people who trust that they are in monogamous situations are not devastated when they realize they were not.

emm said:

doubly devestated. it frikking sucks.

that fucker!!



and yet your spirit and amazing health astound me
much love to you

.
[Edited 1/31/07 13:59pm]

emm said:

yeah.

but i also want to point out that he had no idea he had become positive.

i do not pretend to know what the burden of proof would be but to me it seems like they can prove that "Smith knew he had HIV, that he had sex with the complainants, that he didn’t disclose his status, and that he didn’t use a condom."

so what is the appropriate sentence? how long should he spend in jail?

cborgman said:

,


you ....not being bossy?



yeah i know i know.



yeah that is why i was shocked when i thought you said you did not see the knowing spread of it as a crime.

This is a complete ass if he went around knowingly infecting people BUT women have got to start giving more of a damn about themselves to insist on a guy wearing a condom or at least showing current proof of HIV status.

Stymie said:

if you are in a relationship for four years how many people insist on wearing condoms? makes you think.

cborgman said:

so lets say "knew or should have known" as is the case with many laws.

emm said:

Well, people cheat and if I ever get into a long term relationship again, I will insist my aprtner and I get tested every six months.

Stymie said:

I agree.

This is a sad, tragic story, but people need to take responsibility. There are other STDs besides HIV. HPV, for example, can cause cervical cancer. Are you going to start prosecuting people because they spread HPV, which lead to a cancer death? Are you going to put someone in jail because they knowingly went to work with a bad case of the Flu, infected an elderly co-worker, and that co-worker died from it?

It's a very tough argument to make.

If you're going to be sexually active, the best thing to remember is this: any potential partner could be HIV positive. Unless you know for sure, you are the one risking your life by engaging in unprotected sex.

emm said:

it's easy to judge when you aren't in the situation

moving to GD - by request

Mach

Mach said: