HIV+ Student Faces Life In Prison For Infecting 30+ Partners

[W!nston]

UPDATE: HIV-POSITIVE COLLEGE STUDENT FACES LIFE IN PRISON FOR INFECTING MULTIPLE PARTNERS
Madamenoire dot com | By Lauren R.D. Fox | May 15 2015

Michael Johnson - Instagram​

Update- May 15,2015-4:34 p.m.:

This afternoon, Michael Johnson was sentenced to at least 30 years in prison and may serve up to 60 years after being convicted on all five counts of infecting and exposing partners to HIV. If Johnson’s sentences are served concurrently he will serve 30 years; Buzzfeed News reports if his charges are served consecutively, he will serve 60 and a half years. The judge on his case, Judge Jon Cunningham will determine his official sentencing on July 13, 2015.

Update- May 15,2015- 1:55 p.m.:

Former college wrestler, Michael Johnson who is believed to have infected over 30 people with HIV, faces life in prison. He was found guilty on Thursday, May 14, 2015 on one count of recklessly infecting a person with HIV, one count of attempting to recklessly infect a person with HIV and three counts of recklessly exposing partners to HIV. Johnson’s trial was three days long, according to Buzzfeed News and his mother, Tracy Johnson was in attendance along with his former partner, Dylan King Lemons. The two had unprotected sex during their relationship and Lemons believes he contracted the virus from Johnson. Lemons went to the police after he noticed Johnson had active profiles on several gay hookup apps and testified against him in court.

Missouri state law demands people who are diagnosed with HIV to disclose their status to their partners, regardless if they use protection or take medication. Johnson was diagnosed by the Missouri Department of Health with HIV on January 7, 2013. The day after Johnson received his status, he began having unprotected sex with various partners on and in the surrounding area of his college campus. Only six of Johnson’s multiple partners came forward to charge him with knowingly infecting them with HIV and other STDs.

Original Report- January 20, 2014:

Unfortunately, infecting people with HIV is becoming an ongoing trend. Michael Johnson, a 22-year-old Lindenwood University student and wrestler who is HIV-positive, has been sleeping with men unprotected and filming it for months. Investigators believe he could have knowingly infected more that 30 people with the virus since October.

Police report 32 videos have been filmed on Johnson’s laptop and each flick showed him with a different sexual partner. Most of the films have been recorded in his dorm room without protection. The Daily News reports that Missouri’s St. Charles Police Department believes Johnson’s partners didn’t know Johnson has HIV nor did they know they were being filmed. St. Charles County prosecutor Tim Lohmar released a statement asking Johnson’s partners to come forward, telling Missouri’s media outlet KMOV:

“It’s a matter not only of their individual safety but public safety as well.”

The St. Charles Police Department has been building their case against Johnson over a five-month period. Their investigation began when a man came forward, telling police he has been diagnosed with HIV and gonorrhea after engaging in sexual activity with Johnson.

Micheal Johnson also used the online alias, Tiger Mandingo, on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter.

SOURCE

 

[jaykaytooooo]

Omg!!! Psychos can be soooo hot!!!

Obviously disturbed, but so very hot!!! I would have fallen for him and let him fuck me raw.....LESSON: Do not do it!!

 

[ihno]

Did he/they rape those 30+ men? Or forced them in any way not to use condoms?

 

[gb2000ie]

Did he/they rape those 30+ men? Or forced them in any way not to use condoms?

That is an utterly irrelevant question. If you know you have HIV+ and you have unprotected sex, you are morally s, and legally committing a crime.

There is also the allegation form police that the encounters were filmed secretly, so if that is true, this guy is double-s, and doubly breaking the law.

It is, and absolutely should be, illegal to knowingly spread diseases, and to secretly film and share sex you have with others. Basically, the way I see it, this guy committed murder and rape.

B.

 

[ihno]

That is an utterly irrelevant question.

If I would be so stupid to have unprotected sex with a stranger and then catch HIV, it would be my own fault, would it not? (rhetorical)

If you know you have HIV+ and you have unprotected sex, you are morally s, and legally committing a crime.

Yes, that behaviour is highly morally objectable. I agree. But that's how the world is. People lie. And there is nothing people lie more about than sex. Even more reason to be careful.

I am responsible for myself. It's just that simple.

And my point is not that this guy should be let go. My point is: it doesn't help me if this guy goes to prison for 3 or 30 years. I am still sick because I have decided to believe some pleasant lies.

There is also the allegation form police that the encounters were filmed secretly, so if that is true, this guy is double-s, and doubly breaking the law.

Back in 1986, when HIV came up, there was a saying: A virus knows no morals.

It is, and absolutely should be, illegal to knowingly spread diseases

There are countries in which a further qualification is demanded. And that is for a reason.

 

[Shelter]

That is an utterly irrelevant question. If you know you have HIV+ and you have unprotected sex, you are morally s, and legally committing a crime.

There is also the allegation form police that the encounters were filmed secretly, so if that is true, this guy is double-s, and doubly breaking the law.

It is, and absolutely should be, illegal to knowingly spread diseases, and to secretly film and share sex you have with others. Basically, the way I see it, this guy committed murder and rape.

B.

:agree::agree::agree::agree::agree::agree:

 

[gb2000ie]

If I would be so stupid to have unprotected sex with a stranger and then catch HIV, it would be my own fault, would it not? (rhetorical)

No more than it would be your own fault if you were killed while not wearing a seatbelt by a drunk driving a car. Yes, you took a risk, but no, that does not absolve the guilt of the drink-driver one iota. Driving a car while drunk is a crime!

Similarly, not wearing protection is risking accidental infection, but it is not, in any way, a license to be maliciously infected!

Yes, that behaviour is highly morally objectable. I agree. But that's how the world is. People lie. And there is nothing people lie more about than sex. Even more reason to be careful.

I agree that it makes sense to practice safe sex. Don't construe my condemnation of this vile man as support for unsafe sex!

I am responsible for myself. It's just that simple.

And criminals are responsible for their crimes!

We're teetering dangerously near the abhorrent argument that women should not wear short skirts, because, if they do, it is their own fault if they get raped!

And my point is not that this guy should be let go. My point is: it doesn't help me if this guy goes to prison for 3 or 30 years. I am still sick because I have decided to believe some pleasant lies.

Punishing criminals does have a deterrent effect though. While it can't un-do the damage this man did, it can help prevent it happening as often in the future.

For all the same reasons murderers should be locked up, even if that won't resurrect their victims, intentional infecters and digital rapists need to be punished too.

Back in 1986, when HIV came up, there was a saying: A virus knows no morals.

Good advice. Like I say, I'm not in favour of unsafe sex.

There are countries in which a further qualification is demanded. And that is for a reason.

What further qualifications? Surely the only one that matters is the one I already included "knowingly"?

B.

 

[ihno]

That topic had been discussed several times. Sending people to prison because they infected other people with HIV is not really helpful if you want to fight AIDS. It will only make people lie more, not less.

But you have asked for some links.

In Germany special cirstances are demanded to qualify it to be punishable. The qualifications are explained here:

http://anonym.to/http://www.aidshilfe.de/en/living-hiv/law/criminal-law

There are several decisions by german courts as original doents.

I'm sure you can find sources like this for every country.

Since the topic interests me, I googled a bit too. One example is interesting. You will find a different chain of argument but here is something from Australia:

http://anonym.to/http://www.afao.or...13-1-2020-targets/hiv-and-the-law-in-victoria

http://anonym.to/http://www.abc.net...moves-to-repeal-anachronistic-hiv-law/6390496

 

[gb2000ie]

That topic had been discussed several times. Sending people to prison because they infected other people with HIV is not really helpful if you want to fight AIDS. It will only make people lie more, not less.

To be VERY clear, I am NOT advocating that people who accidentally infect others should be punished in any way what so ever - they are victims, not criminals.

It is INTENTIONAL infection we are talking about here, and that definitely needs to be as illegal as any other kind of murder!

But you have asked for some links.

In Germany special cirstances are demanded to qualify it to be punishable. The qualifications are explained here:

http://anonym.to/http://www.aidshilfe.de/en/living-hiv/law/criminal-law

There are several decisions by german courts as original doents.

This conviction seems to be entirely in-line with those very sensible guidelines.

I'm sure you can find sources like this for every country.

Since the topic interests me, I googled a bit too. One example is interesting. You will find a different chain of argument but here is something from Australia:

http://anonym.to/http://www.afao.or...13-1-2020-targets/hiv-and-the-law-in-victoria

http://anonym.to/http://www.abc.net...moves-to-repeal-anachronistic-hiv-law/6390496

What I see in the above links is a great argument for making laws be generic, not disease-specific. I agree.

It should not be a crime to intentionally infect people with just HIV, it should be crime to intentionally infect people with ANY serious illness!

The argument is not that it is wrong to prosecute people for effectively assaulting or attempting to murder people by disease, but rather, that you should write your laws broadly, not fixate on what ever the fashionable cause of the day happens to be.

This is true in many aspects of law. We don't need laws against theft on the internet, we have laws against all theft everywhere!

B.

 

[gb2000ie]

How do you gentlemen feel about this in the case of bugchasing.
A bugchaser is a -ve man who for some god-only-knows reason wants to become infected. So he advertises for +ve men, who he calls gift givers, to give him what they call a 'pozzing' You can find personal messages where the potential victim is begging for someone to infect him. If two consenting adults knowingly choose to do something stupid and dangerous together, is that the concern of the law?
Informed consent is the crucial factor. Without it the act is a crime. With it, what is the legal and moral position.

That's an interesting question.

Initially I thought "of course it's not a crime if they asked for it", but then I thought about euthanasia.

I can make arguments both ways on intentionally infecting chasers.

B.

 

[W!nston]

How do you gentlemen feel about this in the case of bugchasing.
A bugchaser is a -ve man who for some god-only-knows reason wants to become infected. So he advertises for +ve men, who he calls gift givers, to give him what they call a 'pozzing' You can find personal messages where the potential victim is begging for someone to infect him. If two consenting adults knowingly choose to do something stupid and dangerous together, is that the concern of the law?
Informed consent is the crucial factor. Without it the act is a crime. With it, what is the legal and moral position.

In America it's not a crime... yet. But what about other countries? Julian Asange was wanted in Sweden for not using condoms during intercourse with 2 women. How would the scenario you described be frames in Sweden? A crime? Both parties criminally culpable? Are there other countries with similar laws to the one in Sweden?

I am not sure what the Swedish law says. I just remember thinking it was Orwellian when I read that Asange was fighting extradition to Sweden for not using condoms.

 

[brmstn69]

How do you gentlemen feel about this in the case of bugchasing.
A bugchaser is a -ve man who for some god-only-knows reason wants to become infected. So he advertises for +ve men, who he calls gift givers, to give him what they call a 'pozzing' You can find personal messages where the potential victim is begging for someone to infect him. If two consenting adults knowingly choose to do something stupid and dangerous together, is that the concern of the law?
Informed consent is the crucial factor. Without it the act is a crime. With it, what is the legal and moral position.

IMO, "bugchasers" need to be committed to a mental asylum not only for their own safety, but for the safety of others as well. If they're unstable enough to want to be infected, then chances are they will also try to infect others that don't want it. Gift givers should be charged as criminals for taking advantage of the mentally unstable. If they want to be infected then they are obviously unfit to make life decisions for themselves.

Personally, I'd charge both chasers and givers, anyone intentionally spreading disease by either infecting or getting infected as terrorist and for the use of biological weapons.

 

[ihno]

@gb2000ie: I wasn’t talking about the details of this case. To me it is a spectacular but rare case and even if the article suggests otherwise, not the daily life. If the guy is a “moral sbag” or if he’s mentally insane or whatever, doesn’t matter to me.

To really make up my mind I would need to have more information anyway, not just what the press says. So I never said that the guys should go free. And it is not possible to say it generally if this or that specific objective behaviour is a crime in Germany or not. It always depends on the single case. I will also not speculate if this special case would be a crime or not. One article is not enough.

Now generally: The only detail that interested me was that this guy didn’t have problems to find dozens of willing victims. 25 years of HIV – information –campaigns and that’s the outcome? As soon as the guy is young and good looking, some act stupid and reckless?

Back in the 80s some gays went to testing and if the result was HIV- they put the paper in a frame like an university diploma and had it over their bed. Of course it was soon outdated. It is very interesting btw to read to comments below the article.

In the daily life it’s not that simple: Sane people don’t lie about their HIV status because they have sinister intentions, most lie about it because they have a lot of problems. Sometimes the whole social existence is at risk. I know cases of bisexual married men, who had gay sex in secrecy and of course unprotected sex with their wives.

Often they had/have children. Police and judges only make things worse and in the cases I know nobody had the idea to run to the police.

There is also another thing: If one thinks that people should be enforced legally to inform their sexpartners about their HIV status, what about those people who don’t test at all? If you don’t know about your status you cannot be convicted. So should the next logical step be mandatory testing for minorities like gay people in general? Every three months? In the 80s conservative politicians considered camps for HIV+ people.

Some can live for ten years with HIV without need of medication. If I was legally enforced to tell my partners about my HIV status, I would simply not see a doctor any more. That’s why those laws don’t work and are counterproductive. And that’s why the civil right movements are against persecution in general.

Not to mention that there are heavy problems to find out the truth within the preliminary investigation by the law enforcement. If A has sex with B, how shall a police officer decide who lies about a conversation they had before having sex? I can also put an outdated diagnosis over my bed, giving people a false impression and would go out free.

What if B is HIV+ but doesn’t know, where he got that from? Should all his former sexpartners being investigated by the police? Should there be some testings for those? Down to the level of the different kinds of viruses, so you know who infected whom? And everything in a public courtroom in your hometown, when your neighbours can come and watch?

It’s not always as simple as it seems.

Since it is so much text here is a little break.



I continue after this artistical refreshment.

@dargelos:
This is a rather philosophical question and not easy to answer. It always depends on the single case.

Practically speaking: If two people agree on such a bugchasing-thing (which slips my mind), law enforcement will never hear about it, so courts are not involved. Police only gets involved if one changes his mind and then there are the problems with the investigation (see above).

Practically speaking about the law: Very often there are two kinds of offences in the legal systems: official offences (shoot you in your leg) and those petty things, when the state doesn’t have an interest in pursuing (give you a black eye or less). Those are only pursued if you want it.

So if it’s an official offence the law enforcement will investigate anyway. An agreement will make a difference, yes, but only when it comes to the question, how heavy the quilt is and how high the punishment will be. Infecting a willing people by request will surely bring less months than infecting an unwilling person. But if it is an official thing, there will be an investigation anyway.

I don’t know if this question has been decided by German courts yet. There was also a case some years ago, when a former Armyofficer ate parts of a man, who wanted to be eaten and died during the process. The Officer said “It’s not murder, it was killing by request”. That was a rather long cases, which included several so called “revisions” and in the end he was convicted for murder.

Personally I say those guy should better see a shrink.

 

[topdog]

If I would be so stupid to have unprotected sex with a stranger and then catch HIV, it would be my own fault, would it not? (rhetorical)



Yes, that behaviour is highly morally objectable. I agree. But that's how the world is. People lie. And there is nothing people lie more about than sex. Even more reason to be careful.

I am responsible for myself. It's just that simple.

I basically agree. I would just avoid the word "fault", because that implies responsibility and judgment. There are causes and effects. There are risks to be aware of, and unprotected sex is a decision made by two people. If the hunky stranger says he is HIV- and you believe it (or worse still, don't even ask) you are betting your own health. Add to that the fact that many people are HIV+ and don't know it. So they may sincerely believe that they are negative but be mistaken.

This doesn't alter this man's guilt or make his behavior any less reckless. Both things are true at the same time. He was criminally reckless and his partners could have protected themselves.

Take a lesson and stay safe.

 

[Tulliani]

Did he/they rape those 30+ men? Or forced them in any way not to use condoms?

probllaby he didn't tell his parterns he was HIV+, or lied about it.

This is illegal in many countries