Printable View
Ah, however, by speeding or driving too slow or not using turn signals or whatever, you ARE actively trying to cause an accident. You know the laws, you know how to drive properly, and are purposefully ignoring all of that. I don't know if that's spite, but just like we don't know whether or not the sex was unprotected we also don't know he was doing it out of spite. He may have just not cared, like many drivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
He knew he was infected with HIV, and it was his responsibility to inform the women that he had it if he intended to have unprotected sex. I seriously doubt the women were forcing him not to wear a condom.
It's not quite the same as voluntarily getting in a car with a drunk driver: with a drunk driver, there's obvious signs he's drunk.
Yes, he needs to rot in jail. He intentionally ruined other people's lives.
I think that not caring would be spiteful because unless you are completely dense (not you, but the general you), you know that other people don't want to contract HIV.
All correct, but it's not assault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenshin
Yeah, I guess that's true. But does that make people who speed and whatnot spiteful, too? Hrm...Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBVila
I don't drive currently (have my license of course, but don't use it). I don't have much of a need and it's cheap for me to bus. But if you are driving recklessly near anyone else, then you are either spiteful or selfish. Even if I didn't, I still think there's a difference between knowingly infecting someone with a currently terminal virus and trying to get to the store or whatever 30 seconds faster unaware of what can happen (sometimes people just speed, but I doubt people forget that they have HIV and it's going to affect other people if you do something that everyone knows will propogate it).
These aren't seeming like one night stands here. He has kids with two of the women. I can see how you can say it's thier faut, but you guys are rediculous for weighing into it the amount you are. The difference between the womens fault and his is they thought it was potential when it was almost certainly infact going to happen. The guy needs to go to jail.
It's assault because there's no specific term for intentional infection. Technically he assaulted them with a deadly weapon, a virus, even if it doesn't meet the traditional definition of "weapon". (Note that anthrax is classified as a "weapon of mass destruction"?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
I wonder what you guys who are defending this guy would say if it was a girl that was deliberately infecting guys. :/
The guys wouldn't be free of blame in your example, either, Dam.
Still think he deserves reckless endangerment and nothing more, the girls should have known better. My 2 cents.
And THAT is a scary feeling... ::shivers::Quote:
You can feel when a condom breaks.