Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Gay Poz Man ***GUILTY*** of Attempted Murder Using His HIV As a Weapon!

A self-described “poz vampire” who had unprotected sex with other men without telling them his HIV positive status has been found guilty of trying to kill his sex partners with the disease.

“There is no way I was trying to kill anyone,” a shaking Steven Boone told his lawyers before being led sobbing from the prisoner’s box in shackles.

Boone’s mother broke down in tears in the hallway after the verdict late Wednesday. Inside the court, she yelled at a Crown attorney observing the proceedings who she thought was smiling.

“What are you smirking about? You think it’s funny?” she asked.

Moments earlier, Boone could be seen becoming emotional as the jury found him guilty of three counts of attempted murder and administering a noxious substance — his semen — on three young men, including a 17-year-old, with whom he’d had unprotected sex. The 17-year-old male later tested positive for HIV.

Boone, 31, was also convicted of three counts of aggravated sex assault. Two of the charges related to two of the men he was convicted of trying to kill. The third count was in relation to a man who he had sex with using a condom.

The jury acquitted him of two counts of aggravated sexual assault in relation to two men who engaged in oral sex with him. Boone told none of the men he was HIV positive.

The guilty verdict signaled that the jury felt there was a realistic possibility of transmission of HIV, even during anal sex using a condom. What wasn’t clear was if they concluded Boone had ejaculated in or damaged the condom, which would increase the risk of spreading the disease.

They also concluded the Crown had proved there was an intent to kill three men Boone had unprotected sex with.

However, the jury’s not guilty findings on two of the aggravated sex assault charges mean they didn’t find there was a realistic possibility of the transmission of HIV during oral sex where no ejaculation occurred.

What constitutes a “realistic possibility” of HIV transmission was the central issue in the trial.

Canadian law says you don’t have to disclose your HIV positive status if there isn’t a realistic possibility of transmitting the disease.

The Crown argued that oral sex with an HIV positive person with an unreduced viral load represented a greater risk than unprotected vaginal sex with someone who had a low viral load.

A Supreme Court of Canada decision on the eve of Boone’s trial found that unprotected vaginal sex with a person with a low viral load met the standard of a “realistic possibility”of transmitting the disease and required disclosure.

Vaginal sex where the HIV-positive person uses a condom and has a low viral load didn’t require disclosure, according to the Supreme Court of Canada decision.

An HIV expert who testified for the Crown concluded the risk in Boone’s case for oral sex without ejaculation was about 1 in 2,000. The risk of transmitting HIV during sex with a condom where there was no ejaculation was about 1 in 1,000, the doctor concluded. Boone’s viral load was considered about average.

An expert who testified for the defense wouldn’t put a number on the risk of transmission from oral sex, but opined it was so close to zero it was almost theoretical.

To secure the attempted murder convictions, the Crown relied extensively on sexual chats where Boone often boasted about having unprotected sex with unsuspecting sex partners and teenage virgins.

In his quest to convince people to have “bareback” sex, Boone would claim condoms caused cancer and portrayed life with HIV as something that increased your sex drive.

Boone said he “lost count” of how many HIV negative men he had sex with without telling them he had HIV.

The Crown alleged Boone was part of a disturbing subculture of “bug chasers” who would try to “stealth poz” HIV-negative men in an attempt to give them the disease.

continued

by Anonymousreply 10303/01/2014

Oh, that's interesting. So these other people bear no responsibility for THEIR behaviour? So do the rest of us have to look out for them for the whole of their lives since they're too stupid to make their recreational sex partner wear a condom?

I used to like Canada.

by Anonymousreply 911/01/2012

What are all of the different terms used for men who try to infect other men, and also for those who accept it?

by Anonymousreply 1111/01/2012

Who defended him, R12?

Right now, which poster on this thread defended him? Speak up.

by Anonymousreply 1311/01/2012

Good. Everyone should disclose their status AND everyone should assume everyone else is lying and only have protected sex. It's absolutely ridiculous anyone is getting HIV anymore.

by Anonymousreply 1411/01/2012

[quote]What are all of the different terms used for men who try to infect other men, and also for those who accept it?

The two most commonly used terms are "Treasure Island Media" and "Hot Desert Knights."

by Anonymousreply 1511/01/2012

I appreciate your hysteria, R12, but you clearly understand nothing about sexual health, education and strong messages. This ruling clearly re-enforces the ignorance that says an individual is not responsible for their own behaviour and that AIDS is a death sentence. It's not. When you go for an HIV test, your doctor will tell you that even if you are HIV+ you will most likely die from circumstances unrelated to that diagnosis. Heart failure, diabetes, etc.

So if AIDS is no longer a death sentence, how can this guy be tried for "attempted murder"? Is Canada living in the '80s for some reason?

Even worse, it sends the terrible message - broadcast nationally, I'm sure - that you don't have to be concerned about contracting HIV (or other STDS - and there are plenty of them out there that all sexually active people of any age, gender or orientation should be aware of) because the gov't has passed a law - ignorant of how people deal with a positive diagnosis - but nonetheless protects everybody else.

When CLEARLY, it doesn't. This is not the way to prevent HIV infection.

by Anonymousreply 1611/01/2012

Exactly R14

by Anonymousreply 1711/01/2012

A Supreme Court of Canada said unprotected vaginal sex with a person with a low viral load met the standard of a “realistic possibility” of transmitting the disease and required disclosure.

by Anonymousreply 1811/01/2012

"Even worse, it sends the terrible message - broadcast nationally, I'm sure - that you don't have to be concerned about contracting HIV "

Excuse me? How does giving worldwide coverage to a case of a man lying about his HIV status discourage people from being concerned about transmission? A person would have to be terminally stupid to think that one conviction ended the problem, the sensible response is to reflect on why the law exists in the first place.

I'm allfor the law, BTW. Don't get me started.

by Anonymousreply 1911/01/2012

Supreme Court of Canada states people are not required to disclose their HIV status unless their viral load count is deemed high enough to potentially infect someone with the disease.

The Supreme Court of Canada also decided condoms would have to be worn for the viral load consideration to be taken into account.

Carissima Mathen is a criminal and constitutional law professor at the University of Ottawa, who has done research about the criminal responsibility of failing to disclose HIV status.

"Attempted murder is really about the intent of the defendant, what was the defendant's state of mind," Mathen said Friday. "And as long as you can show an intent to kill, combined with some action that takes it beyond mere preparation or just thinking about it, that's enough to show attempted murder.

"The issue around failure to disclose HIV is that because that's an area where there can be different motivations at work, it can be a little bit tricky, or possibly a slippery slope to start to think that everyone who deliberately withholds that information — maybe because they're just careless or they're not thinking about the other person — will there be a temptation to say, well, they must have intended to kill the person," she said.

Many in the gay community believe criminalizing HIV non-disclosure will cause some people to avoid getting tested.

During the trial, the Crown relied heavily on sexually explicit online chat history, in which Boone would seek sex with HIV-negative men.

Boone is facing similar charges in Ottawa on Nov. 13, and still more similar charges in Waterloo next month.

by Anonymousreply 2011/01/2012

Everyone is responsible for their own health. If I had a penny for every poz guy who told me he was neg and tried to have bareback sex with me I'd have... a dollar.

More people are having bareback sex than ever before, and govt backed AIDS organisations, mostly managed by HIV poz gay men in nice cushy roles, aren't remotely interested in producing marketing campaigns that could possibly damage the self-esteem of the poz by suggesting acquiring HIV was a ghastly outcome to be avoided at all costs. That's why you get all this softly-softly safe sex marketing shit which clearly isn't working despite the endless massaging of statistics by those who have everything to lose. And I'm a slut, so if I think it's useless rubbish, imagine how someone just blossoming into their sexuality feels.

by Anonymousreply 2111/01/2012

[quote]Everyone is responsible for their own health. If I had a penny for every poz guy who told me he was neg and tried to have bareback sex with me I'd have... a dollar.

Do you think that might've really thought they were negative?

by Anonymousreply 2211/01/2012

Before, we were required to disclose if there was a “significant risk” of transmission. The new wording is we have to out ourselves when there is a “realistic possibility” of transmission.

If you have no idea what that means, welcome to the club.

The only clarification the Supreme Court offered was for straight people fucking in missionary position. If that involved both condoms and a low viral load, transmission wasn’t a “realistic possibility.” But for gay guys who don’t do much of that? Who knows? Oral sex? Who knows? Lesbians? Your guess is as good as mine.

So in terms of clarity, the Supreme Court bombed again. We can look forward to more queer prosecutions in order to clarify whether our various sexual behaviours fall within a “realistic possibility” of HIV transmission or not.

What about people who, for a variety of reasons, aren’t on meds or can’t get regular viral load tests — because of poverty, living in a remote area, immigration issues or because their doctors have told them they didn’t need to yet? How are they going to prove they have a low viral load? Before, as long as they had used a condom, they had a defence. Now it’s open season. So we can look forward to more prosecutions of the homeless, sex workers, minorities, aboriginals and those of us who don’t yet need meds.

The Supreme Court could have listened to community research and expert opinion and taken into account how criminalization is fanning the flames of the epidemic. Instead, they dismissed this evidence and ignored the recent United Nations report that detailed the dangers of broad criminalization.

Crown prosecutors are supposed to consider the “public interest” before dragging anyone through the courts. Can anyone seriously maintain that throwing more HIV-positive people in jail, for activities that don’t transmit HIV or pose any significant risk to anyone, is in the public interest?

Driving people with HIV underground from fear of criminalization only fans the flames of the epidemic. And that’s certainly in nobody’s interest.

by Anonymousreply 2311/01/2012

Regaring "everyone being responsible for their own health", the law exists for a reason.

If your car is stolen, the law does not say "It was your responsibility to park it somewhere with better lighting". If you are raped, the law doesn't tell you that it was your own fault or wearing that sexy outfit.

Of course it's in everyone's best interests to avoid putting themselves at risk, but the law is there to prevent or punish assaultive behavior, not to blame the victim.

by Anonymousreply 2511/01/2012

R16, that's a very PC response, yet it's completely false. The person most responcible in this scenario is the one with a serious disease who's consciously spreading it. You want to transfer that responcibility to his partners, and that's not appropriate.

As for AIDs being a death sentence, that's loaded language. This notion that AIDs is nothing is absurd. A person with AIDs is not going to live a full life expectancy. Depending on their reaction to the illness, they may spend a lot of their lives going to doctors and being treated with serious medications. Your attempt to minimise the disease is every bit as suspect as something trying to create "hysteria" around it. People still die from AIDS related illness, no matter how much that has been closeted.

by Anonymousreply 2611/01/2012

Sign the OSLO Declaration!

We are a group of 20 individuals and organisations from civil society around the world concerned about the inappropriate and overly-broad use of the criminal law to regulate and punish people living with HIV for behaviour that in any other circumstance would be considered lawful. We are working to end such injustice. We are led by, and include, people living with HIV, and supported by committed HIV advocates. Our expertise covers medical, social, ethical, political, human rights and judicial issues relating to HIV and the criminal law.

by Anonymousreply 2811/01/2012

The HIV Justice Network is a global information and advocacy hub for individuals and organizations working to end inappropriate criminal prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure and transmission.

by Anonymousreply 2911/01/2012

This is all nice and informative, but what's the name of the 17 year-old victim? The papers say that he's now 20 and attends college. Wonder if it's UOttawa? Carleton? McGill? Get on it and report back to us, DL Nancy Drews!

by Anonymousreply 3011/01/2012

He knew he was poz, but didn't tell any of his partners?

Absurd, morally-reprehensible creature.

His partners didn't know he was poz, but decided to bareback anyway?

Absurd, silly creatures...

I had a relationship with a poz guy - I made sure I was protected, never drunk when we had sex, and followed ALL the rules...

HE was the one who killed the relationship - apparently I wasn't *TOTALLY* into our thing cos I wasn't looking to get infected...

It's called "Bug-hunting"?

by Anonymousreply 3111/01/2012

R24, as an aside, learn how to spell RESPONSIBILITY. And IRRESPONSIBILITY.

It's hard to take someone seriously when they can't spell.

by Anonymousreply 3211/01/2012

[quote] r21 you sopund like the person who accuses the rape survivor of walking around at night.

Not at all. This is about consensual sex, not rape

by Anonymousreply 3311/01/2012

R24 - R27, I worked for years managing clients and groups with HIV. You do not have a thorough understanding of the issues involved, especially disclosure, and though you and others here are attempting to speak rationally (mostly in some irrational, biblical "eye for an eye" type morality), your reactions are knee-jerk, defensive and motivated by fear.

NO ONE is defending this man's behaviour. Many people on this thread are CHALLENGING the effectiveness of criminalising non-disclosure of HIV status - primarily because it doesn't work, either in a court of law (see R23 for some insight as to how the law has been bent) or in the real world.

You said it yourself: "But what punishment is going to give those other men their health back?" Answer: None. Who is prosecuting the guy who gave it to Boone?

Also, look at R14, with whom I partially agree: "...everyone should assume everyone else is lying and only have protected sex." I would say everyone should assume that everyone is HIV+ and also potentially carrying other STDs and act accordingly - protect yourself.

If everyone took responsibility for their own behaviour and protected themselves from infection there would be no need for disclosure - at least not in recreational circumstances.

There's actually quite a bit a person can do to avoid getting infected with HIV other than lying back, spreading their legs and letting it happen.

You are also wrong and wrong about HIV being a death sentence. In the West, HIV is considered a manageable illness. Did I ever say it was a cake walk? No. Did I ever say it was no big deal? No. But I came of age during the AIDS crisis - when it was a death sentence - so I understand the difference. You obviously think you're going to go through your entire life untouched by illness or disability. It's cute how naive you are. But I never said living with HIV was preferable to not living with HIV so don't be so quick to mouth off to an old-timer who has been here, alive, conscious and informed throughout the entire history of this illness.

Thinking the gov't is going to protect you from HIV infection is STUPID. By the time they get involved, you're infected. There are also laws against killing people and yet it happens with great frequency EVERY MINUTE.

So don't be stupid, don't be vengeful, don't blame "the other," show some self-respect, take an interest in your sexual health, get tested, use protection, play safer, stay negative and protect yourself. The gov't will not help you in the bedroom, people.

by Anonymousreply 3411/01/2012

[quote]If everyone took responsibility for their own behaviour and protected themselves from infection there would be no need for disclosure - at least not in recreational circumstances.

Bullshite. Condoms break. I should be the one to make the decision if I want to take that risk. No one should be having unprotected sex, but no one should knowingly have sex - unprotected or otherwise - without full disclosure.

If you know you are poz but don't tell and someone gets infected by you, you should be guilty of a crime.

by Anonymousreply 3511/01/2012

I wonder how they came to the conclusion that it was attempted murder? In 2007, a straight football player named Trevis Smith was convicted only of aggravated assault for the same type of crime on women. What is the difference?

by Anonymousreply 3611/01/2012

[quote]If everyone took responsibility for their own behaviour and protected themselves from infection there would be no need for disclosure - at least not in recreational circumstances.

And what if the condom does break? Should the poz person then be required to tell tell his partner that he's poz so that the partner can seek treatment?

I hate to say it, but I agree with Ciaran.

by Anonymousreply 3711/01/2012

What you fail to understand, Ciaran, is that in this age, every time you engage in sexual activity with another person you're at risk. You're at risk of contracting herpes, some form of HPV, HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphillis, etc., etc.

And, on the one hand, I agree with you. In a perfect world, where rainbows bounce across the sky and unicorns run free, yes, people should fully disclose their HIV status. In practice? This is never going to happen. As someone mentioned up thread, criminalising non-disclosure of HIV will only encourage people not to get tested. After all, if you don't know, how can you act with intent? Not to mention, there are a ton of people who never get tested and just assume they're too perfect to get HIV so what good is their disclosure? And is everyone's status up to date? What if their exposure happened outside of the frame of their testing?

Criminalising HIV disclosure is a false assurance that does nothing - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - to prevent HIV infection. Think about it.

by Anonymousreply 3811/01/2012

Ciaran, how are gays perceived in Ireland? Bad or good? Are they accepted?

by Anonymousreply 3911/01/2012

But R37, why, in all of these scenarios, are you and others putting the onus of responsibility on someone other than yourself? You don't think you should use a condom unless your sexual partner discloses that they're HIV. The condom breaks and, though anxious, you still look to your sexual partner to take responsibility and disclose what they may or may not know about their HIV status. If you listen to them, you'll find out for sure in about two weeks, if you're vigilant.

If a condom breaks and you're concerned about exposure to HIV then maybe you should be the one to decide to go the ER and begin the PEP protocol, which you have 72 hours after exposure to start.

It's like people of your mindset don't understand what true responsibility for one's actions is and/or you just don't want to take it.

by Anonymousreply 4011/01/2012

R39, Ireland is a predominantly Catholic society, estimated to be at 90%.

I'm sure you can figure it out.

by Anonymousreply 4111/01/2012

[quote]Criminalising HIV disclosure is a false assurance that does nothing - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - to prevent HIV infection. Think about it.

I'm not talking about reducing the HIV infection rate - I'm talking about punishing someone who knowingly infects another person or who, through non disclosure, allows another person to become infected. We punish people for murder and robbery without debating whether it has any effect on the murder and robbery rates.

If a person doesn't get tested because he or she will have to disclose it, then that person is too stupid to live. Either you are a responsible person who tries to be safe and gets tested regularly or you are irresponsible with your health and the health of your partners. I don't think intelligent, responsible people will avoid getting tested. This is another reason to think twice about hooking up with a stranger.

by Anonymousreply 4211/01/2012

I agree with Ciaran.

Requiring disclosure will not cause people to go untested, the cause and effect here is that people will take HIV more seriously and use protection, they will disclose their status to sex partners and finally people will want to avoid possible criminal liability so they will get tested if they suspect they are infected.

Aids is a serious disease and minimalizing it causes apathy.

by Anonymousreply 4311/01/2012

"And what if the condom does break?"

Then I'm not hanging around for kisses, cuddles or confessions -

(or towels and meatballs - jeeez, I'm sooooo missing the point of that thread)

- I'm heading to my local clinic...

by Anonymousreply 4411/01/2012

[quote]But [R37], why, in all of these scenarios, are you and others putting the onus of responsibility on someone other than yourself? You don't think you should use a condom unless your sexual partner discloses that they're HIV.

Of course you should use a condom. I never said that I think someone should put the responsibility on his partner. I'm saying that I agree with Ciaran that it is MY decision whether I want to have protected sex with someone who is poz because I'm the one who is at risk if the condom breaks.

Are you poz?

by Anonymousreply 4511/01/2012

If you're willing to engage in unprotected sex with one person, it's then highly doubtful that this guy is the only person they've done this with before. I'd like to know how they traced it all back to him. Can they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these men who were infected were not hooking up with various other people and also engaging in unprotected sex with them?

it's also silly to think that you've never hooked up with someone who is positive. Consider the fact that 25% of gay men who have HIV don't even know they're infected.

by Anonymousreply 4611/01/2012

Well, Ciaran, I suspect we live in two different worlds. I would much rather focus my energy and attention on things I can actually control - like taking responsibility for my own behaviour rather than being dependent on other people acting responsibly.

If you think the world is full of responsible, intelligent people who will think twice about hooking up with a stranger, well then, we do not live on the same planet. But good luck to you with all that.

by Anonymousreply 4711/01/2012

One thing I'm certain about: no individuals who are HIV POZ should be employed by organisations who undertake safe sex campaigns and receive government monies. HIV testing should be also mandatory for anyone seeking employment in such organisations, and employed denied to those who are found to be poz. Tough? Absolutely. But self policing doesn't work anywhere, and certainly not by HIV poz individuals responsible for safe sex campaigns to the general gay community. The gross waste of public funds by these organisations for over a decade in their absolute refusal to undertake hard hitting safe sex campaigns is proof of it. To support their refusal they say such campaigns don't work. This is bullshit of a high criminal level.

by Anonymousreply 4811/01/2012

What's interesting about the question you pose, R45, is that you think it's any of your business.

And R43, consider this: if you get tested, you're criminally liable. If you don't, you're not. Now honestly, even putting aside all of the associated stigma of HIV infection, do you honestly think criminalising non-disclosure is going to make more people get tested? Really?

by Anonymousreply 4911/01/2012

[quote]Well, Ciaran, I suspect we live in two different worlds. I would much rather focus my energy and attention on things I can actually control - like taking responsibility for my own behaviour rather than being dependent on other people acting responsibly.

Jazuz, man, are you being obtuse on purpose? I never said a person should not take responsibility for his own actions. I said that part of taking responsibility is making informed decisions. I should be able to decide for myself if I want to take the risk of having PROTECTED sex, because shite happens.

Yours is the argument of a poz guy who don't want to be honest and upfront with his partners.

by Anonymousreply 5011/01/2012

[quote]And [R43], consider this: if you get tested, you're criminally liable.

You are criminally liable if you know AND DON'T TELL. If you are honest and upfront with your partners, then the responsibility is on their shoulders.

by Anonymousreply 5111/01/2012

Butt fukin has always been a pain in the ass for me. I'd just have my rectum tiled in porcelain and hose it out after every indulgence of multiple lovin ass strokes in my porcelain pavilion.I might just squeegee the sucker to be sure it is squeaky clean.

by Anonymousreply 5211/01/2012

W&W for R52, especially the first line. I fucking died laughing.

by Anonymousreply 5311/01/2012

I believe both the top and the bottom should be put in jail. Both the infected and non infected need to be jailed for carelessness that could infect many other stupid people like themselves. Personally I think these people are doing the rest of us a favor by thinning out the herd.

But honestly, today's horny gays who don't assume all partners are positive need to be put away. These are people who will likely lie about their HIV status. If the uninfected don't ask, they have no justifiable reason for becoming infected and putting the infected in prison and leaving the idiot free makes no sense. Both need to be jailed.

by Anonymousreply 5411/01/2012

Personally attacking me (and my typo) is the last resort of someone who has a weak argument.

by Anonymousreply 5611/01/2012

Which "gay sex cruising" site do ya bitches think Boone (the poz top) used to lure his "victims"? One of the articles said something about MSN Chat (is that shit still up running BTW?) while the others didn't name the site. Craigslist? Adam4Adam? Manhunt? Whaddaya bitches reckon?

by Anonymousreply 5711/01/2012

Really Ciaran? Then why don't you take a look at your post at R50 which I doubt anyone would say is free of baseless attack. I'd say your self-awareness is equivalent to your intelligence.

by Anonymousreply 5811/01/2012

Is Ciaran racist?

by Anonymousreply 5911/01/2012

The AIDS Committee of Ottawa, which provides support, prevention and education services in the city said the verdict “contradict medical science and merely promote fear and hatred.”

“These verdicts have painted Steven Boone, and peripherally all people living with HIV/AIDS, as malicious and toxic,” said the committee in news release.

by Anonymousreply 6011/01/2012

Why attack Ciaran? He never said that people shouldn't take personal responsibility at any time.

The point he was making is that he wanted to know beforehand so that he could make a decision as to wether he should go through with the added risk.

You can still get AIDS and other STD's even if you wear a condom, they can break, gay or straight.

by Anonymousreply 6111/01/2012

After a lot of failed efforts at HIV prevention targeted to negatives, there has been a huge evidence-based shift toward greater focus on prevention with positives -- getting positives on antiretroviral therapy to reduce their viral load and reduce transmissability and to recognize that they have responsibility--along with everyone else--for not knowingly infecting others. I think there is a shared responsibility here for all partners, negative, positive, unknown. That said, i do believe that anyone who knowingly attempts to infect someone else--and there is some suggestion this guy did--needs to be addressed at least as an aggravated assault charge. This guy sounds sociopathic.

by Anonymousreply 6311/01/2012

Gay Poz Man that was convicted is white.

by Anonymousreply 6411/01/2012

People who know they're positive and don't disclose are malicious and toxic. And I don't mean in a biological sense. It sucks having HIV, because people discriminate on that basis. All the virus reducing drugs and lengthened lifespans don't change the fact it is a chronic disease and people fear it. If you've got it you have a moral obligation to disclose it. And if you don't your a shit, whether you're having safer sex or not.

by Anonymousreply 6511/01/2012

Who said Ciaran was being attacked? Oh yeah, Ciaran.

by Anonymousreply 6611/01/2012

Finally, bitches, VOICE OF REASON at R63. And, Boone the Poz Top is white, R62. Maybe the then-17-year-old victim was black?

by Anonymousreply 6811/01/2012

Agree there's a shared responsibility. You should know your status. You should act in the context of it. Effective treatment does not justify silence.

by Anonymousreply 6911/01/2012

If you know you have AIDS, if you know you are HIV+, and do not tell a prospective partner, you are guilty of attempted murder. All of you who are trying to rationalize that, gee,gosh, golly, it isn't so serious these days, are full of crap. Those who do not disclose status, besides criminal charges, should also be subject to civil charges, to be responsible for the lifetime (whatever may be left of their lifetme because of such a criminal act) cost of healthcare for the person they infected.

by Anonymousreply 7011/01/2012

[quote] All of you who are trying to rationalize that, gee,gosh, golly, it isn't so serious these days, are full of crap.

Where? Please point ALL of them out.

by Anonymousreply 7111/01/2012

And r70 will never again get laid in his life.

Protect YOURSELF, and you can't / won't go wrong!!!

by Anonymousreply 7211/01/2012

Thanks for pointing that out, R65. We were all so unclear about that until you came along.

by Anonymousreply 7311/01/2012

[quote]Protect YOURSELF, and you can't / won't go wrong!!!

Until the condom breaks.

by Anonymousreply 7411/01/2012

[quote]The gov't will not help you in the bedroom, people.

President Romney will recriminalize homosexual sodomy

by Anonymousreply 7511/01/2012

Good.

by Anonymousreply 7611/02/2012

this whole story is so sad. Boone got infected intentionally to begin with. we are failing our young gay brethren.

by Anonymousreply 7711/02/2012

A friend of mine who was young and not confrontational was dating a much older troll who only wanted to have sex bareback. Turns out troll had HIV and so now does my friend. My friend was at a bar and hadn't spoken to the troll since he tested poz and somehow the subject came up and troll said "didn't he (my friend) feel lucky now that he has 'the gift.'"

My friend, being a kind hearted soul, has forgiven the troll. I, however, have not.

by Anonymousreply 7811/02/2012

Ciaran is 100% in the right. I don't understand the vitriol against him. I have dated two poz guys, both told me before we had sex. Both were wonderful guys and I don't regret dating them and would do it again in a heartbeat. I was able to make an informed decision about when I wanted to have sex, and what kind of sex I was willing to have. This is how it should always be. If I hook up, I ALWAYS ask the guy his status, even if I've been drinking. So many guys are stunned when I do this. Frankly, gay men should be stunned when someone doesn't do that! Sheesh...

by Anonymousreply 7911/02/2012

How do people not see the difference between deciding to live a reckless life and committing a crime against another person. He had the malicious intent to harm people and went through with it. Whether his victims were stupid or sluts or good role models or not is completely irrelevant to his responsibility for his crime.

by Anonymousreply 8011/02/2012

Anyone who knows he is HIV positive and does not tell sex partners that he is positive should be guilty of a crime. Even for negative people who have safe sex, there is a chance that the condom breaks. Why can't HIV positive men just go have sex with other HIV positive men and leave the rest of us alone? Why would you want to infect someone? THe guy in this case should be fucking castrated.

by Anonymousreply 8111/02/2012

[quote]..he knew he was HIV positive and performed unprotected sex upon these men without disclosing that fact.

This is not just "failure to disclose". This is actually insisting that you are HIV- (which Boone did) when you are not. Boone had a clear and confessed intent to infect. He wasn't just 'not disclosing' so that he could avoid the stigma and have sex. He was lying so that he could infect people.

[quote]This is about consensual sex, not rape

Actually, if you gain consent through fraudulent means (i.e. claiming that you are disease free when you know that you are not) that IS rape.

by Anonymousreply 8311/02/2012

Again, the naivete on this thread just astounds. Fine, lock up those who infect others, "knowingly" or otherwise. Lock 'em up! There's no room in the prisons already but, by all means, squeeze them in there! There. Now don't you feel better?

R83 look at R79. He ALWAYS asks a guy his status. Never mind that someone like Boone would've told him he was negative, never mind that often people don't even know their HIV status or what they're carrying - I mean, you do know that people can carry viruses and pass them on without showing any outward signs or symptoms of infection, right? They're called "silent carriers." But, never mind - as long as you ask and your recreational sex partner tells you what you want to hear, everything is fine and you should take risks. If you can't handle the consequences of your own behaviour, maybe you can prosecute the other guy which won't resolve your health problems but might satisfy you in other ways.

What's really funny is that though there have been suggestions on this thread that people who are HIV+ should be jailed, denied employment, isolated and restricted to social interaction only with each other and a general sense of further ostracising them from society, there's sort of a lack of understanding as to why this guy Boone might've felt isolated and vengeful about what happened to him. Hmm. Well, why bother dealing with the real issues when you can exact revenge instead. It's not right what he did, to be sure, and to empathise with him does not mean I approve of his behaviour but the application of "cut/dried" "black/white" thinking in the approach to dealing with HIV prevention (and punishment - let's not forget punishment!) demonstrates a fundamental lack of human nature. Not theoretical morality. I'm talking about how human beings actually behave in distressing circumstances - y'know, like how all the Germans frog marched behind Hitler during WWII and willingly enabled the genocide of millions of Jewish and homosexual people? It wasn't moral. It was just a situation where people were ruled by fear.

It is clear by now that there are two different issues here at loggerheads: 1) the criminalisation of non-disclosure of HIV status which, even with the best intentions, lacks accuracy and should not be taken as scientific fact or even face value and 2) the means of preventing HIV infection, both on an individual and larger societal level.

I would conclude by saying that people who think the law is going to protect them against HIV infection or even stop the spread of HIV are seriously mistaken as the scenario illustrated in the legal framework does not resemble what actually happens when two people engage in recreational sexual activity (which excludes sexual activity in an LTR, though there may be similarities). People, both heterosexual and homosexual and everyone in between, have recreational sex which is probably where these issues manifest most profoundly.

by Anonymousreply 8411/02/2012

Not to interrupt this fascinating debate, but does no one wonder why this case was called attempted murder, while this previous one (that's similar) wasn't? He only spent two years in jail, btw.

Trevis Smith (born September 8, 1976) was a football linebacker who played seven years with the Saskatchewan Roughriders of the Canadian Football League. Born in Montgomery, Alabama, Smith was formerly a linebacker for the University of Alabama.

On October 28, 2005 he was charged with aggravated sexual assault in Surrey, BC for knowingly exposing women to the HIV virus by having unprotected sex with them and not revealing his condition. Constable Marc Searle of the RCMP named a complainant called simply "A. O." who claimed that Smith had assaulted her between November 26, 2003, and May 18, 2005. After appearing in court in Surrey, he was freed on bail $10,000 (CAD) pleaded "not guilty". On November 18, Smith was charged with the same offence in Regina, Saskatchewan after another woman came forward alleging that Smith did not tell her that he was HIV positive before they had unprotected sex.

Smith was found guilty of two counts of aggravated sexual assault—one for each woman—and bail violations on February 8, 2007 and sentenced to 5½ years in jail on February 26, 2007; he unsuccessfully appealed the conviction.

by Anonymousreply 8511/02/2012

Because R85, he's a straight male, probably white. That's why. Welcome to the world.

How could they prosecute Boone for attempted murder if it's not at all clear that the guy bringing the charges will in fact die of AIDS? Grievous bodily harm, maybe. Attempted murder? Murder? If he wanted to murder him, Boone could've just strangled the guy. I don't see intent to murder.

by Anonymousreply 8611/02/2012

Actually, R86, he's black.

by Anonymousreply 8711/02/2012

Black > Gay

by Anonymousreply 8811/02/2012

Attempted murder is pretty harsh though. He might have gotten off more easily if he hadn't gone after 17-year-old boys. Not the best way to get sympathy.

by Anonymousreply 8911/02/2012

[quote]It is clear by now that there are two different issues here at loggerheads: 1) the criminalisation of non-disclosure of HIV status which, even with the best intentions, lacks accuracy and should not be taken as scientific fact or even face value and 2) the means of preventing HIV infection, both on an individual and larger societal level.

You are wrong. This isn't about the criminalization of non-disclosure of HIV status, no matter how many times you repeat it. It isn't. This is about INTENTIONALLY spreading a disease, not inadvertently, but intentionally with malice aforethought. The defendant in this case was not just some guy living in denial and looking to hook up. This is a guy who actually said "I am going to infect as many people as I can".

by Anonymousreply 9011/02/2012

R90 And there you have it. Nice, simple clean. No more explanation needed.

"This is about INTENTIONALLY spreading a disease, not inadvertently, but intentionally with malice aforethought. The defendant in this case was not just some guy living in denial and looking to hook up. This is a guy who actually said "I am going to infect as many people as I can"."

And there you have it. Nice, simple clean. No more explanation needed

by Anonymousreply 9111/02/2012

[quote]What's really funny is that though there have been suggestions on this thread that people who are HIV+ should be jailed, denied employment, isolated and restricted to social interaction only with each other

Nobody has suggested that people who are HIV+ should be denied employment, isolated or restricted in any way. Where was that stated? Any person with even a modicum compassion and intelligence would disclose his or her status. Only a selfish pig who just cared about his own desires would refuse to disclose.

by Anonymousreply 9211/02/2012

Yeah R92, see R45, R48, R50, R67 and R81, for a start.

by Anonymousreply 9311/03/2012

Nice try r93. Denied employment? No. r48 states that HIV poz people should be denied employment with agencies that are charged with promoting safe sex. I disagree with his idea but it's a dishonest tactic to suggest that the message is that HIV+ people should be denied employment period.

The rest of the posts you link to posit that a person with HIV should be legally obligated to disclose their status to any prospective sex partner. You (again, dishonestly) say that this is akin to saying that all people with HIV should be jailed, isolated and denied social interaction.

by Anonymousreply 9411/03/2012

Right, R94. They shouldn't be denied employment...they should just be denied employment. They shouldn't be jailed...they should just be jailed. They shouldn't be restricted and isolated from others...they should just be restricted and isolated from others.

You see what you want to see but don't be so quick to call somebody else dishonest just because they aren't as comfortable with creeping hysteria as you are.

by Anonymousreply 9511/03/2012

By R48's logic, then people with cancer shouldn't counsel other people with cancer. R48 is a nut.

by Anonymousreply 9611/03/2012

YOu really are unable to distinguish between people who are HIV+ and people who lie about their status, aren't you r95?

If literacy killed more people than HIV you'd be safe.

by Anonymousreply 9711/03/2012

It's like market economics. We decide who we're going to sleep with based on a range of factors, from attractiveness to health to how horny we are at the moment.

If you have HIV you are in possession of material information that will affect the investment decision of the other party. You're obligated to disclose, even if the other party is hermetically sealed in latex.

by Anonymousreply 9811/03/2012

While there are valid points on each side of this arguement, and I dont condone what this guy did, there is also another question that nobody seems to address...

what happens when you do disclose and everything is fine, then the other person later decides to CLAIM you didnt disclose because they either became infected or were infected by someone who didnt disclose and they target you because you did ?

an example...a girl has too much to drink and sleeps with a guy and regrets it the next day so says she was raped (im not referring to an actual rape scenario)

Do positive people have to start getting signed releases from their partners to protect themselves ? Seriously.

Im +, and although I dont have sex with ANYONE anymore, Ive always wondered what would happen should I have a relationship with someone and fully disclose, and they end up +...would they claim I didnt disclose when I had ? Would they sue me ? would they have me put in prison ? those are possibilities, especially if the relationship doesnt end well. There are all kinds of vindictive people out there...gay, str8, etc...It can be a real problem.

by Anonymousreply 9903/19/2013

His Facebook page with tons of photos.

by Anonymousreply 10003/01/2014

[quote]The guilty verdict signaled that the jury felt there was a realistic possibility of transmission of HIV, even during anal sex using a condom. What wasn’t clear was if they concluded Boone had ejaculated in or damaged the condom, which would increase the risk of spreading the disease.

[quote]This is what happens when you bareback. Period.

R4, see above. Even if they had used protection, this motherfucker WANTED to infect others.

by Anonymousreply 10103/01/2014

First off, anyone who actually thinks Canada is using this law as some kind of HIV/Aids prevention strategy is too great a moron to be convinced of what a moron they are.

Secondly, yes, your health is your choice. It doesn't matter what anybody tells you... you assess and take your risk, so if you get HIV barebacking - stop whining. You allowed it.

Which brings point three: whatever our responsibility for ourselves, this convict in this case had material knowledge he failed to disclose.

Whatever our responsibility to ourselves we actually do have responsibility to others and if your morals won't help you figure that out apparently the law will.

by Anonymousreply 10203/01/2014

there was a Law & Order about this, "Carrier"

by Anonymousreply 10303/01/2014
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.